ing has been ordered. Unless the plaintiff could not be entitled to relief under any state of facts, which evidently was not the opinion of the Appellate Division, the order should have provided for a further hearing of the case. of the estate. After a trial at Special Term, | been reversed, and no new trial or accountan interlocutory judgment was entered, by which it was decreed that the will of William Z. King gave the personal property to his wife for life with power to dispose of the principal for her own personal use; that the wife during her lifetime did not use all the principal of the personal property; that as to the unused portion the wife was trustee for the remaindermen; that the defendant should account to the plaintiff for the acts of the wife as trustee of the personal property; that in said account he should charge himself with the whole principal received by her, and directed a reference to take and state the account. In pursuance of this decree the defendant filed in the clerk's office an account in which he stated that he was unable to find any of the personal property of William Z. King, but did not therein charge himself with the principal sum received by his testatrix. Thereupon, on the application of the plaintiff, on the theory that the defendant had failed to comply with the interlocutory judgment because he did not charge himself with the principal sum received by his testatrix, final judgment was entered against him for that sum. From this judgment he appealed to the Appellate Division, giving notice of intention to review the interlocutory judgment. The appellate court modified the interlocutory decree by striking therefrom the provision charging the defendant with the principal sum received by his testatrix, and reversed the final judgment, but did not order a new trial. 133 App. Div. 191, 117 N. Y. Supp. 468. It allowed an appeal to this court from so much of its judgment as modified the interlocutory decree of the Special Term and certified questions of law for our determination. See (Sup.) 119 N. Y. Supp. 1144. The practice of the Appellate Division was unauthorized. The defendant, by stating in his notice of appeal to that court that he intended to review the interlocutory judgment, brought that judgment before it, and, if that judgment was erroneous for any reason, he was entitled to its reversal or modification, and to a reversal or modification of the final judgment which was founded on it. Had the Appellate Division affirmed both those judgments, the defendant would have had the right to review that action in this court, and he could then have assailed the judgment for any error. The Appellate Division, by permitting an appeal and certifying questions, could not limit the right of the defendant to sustain the modification on any ground, or limit the power of this court to review the whole case. It is only when an appeal is allowed under subdivision 2 of section 190, Code Civ. Proc., that questions should be certified to this court. In this case the plaintiff could appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Division as a matter of right and without leave from that court. There was a further On the merits, we are of opinion that the will of William Z. King was properly construed by the Appellate Division on the first appeal in this case. Tuthill v. Davis, 121 App. Div. 290, 105 N. Y. Supp. 672. That is to say, its effect was to give the widow a life estate with the absolute power of disposition during her lifetime, with remainder over of such part as she might not dispose of to the persons named in the will. Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 512; Crozier v. Bray, 120 N. Y. 366, 24 N. E. 712; Leggett v. Firth, 132 N. Y. 7, 29 N. E. 950. But the fact that the widow's estate was for life only did not authorize the Special Term to charge the defendant with the whole property she had received from her husband's estate in the face of his statement that he could not find any part of that estate in his hands. It is doubtless true that ordinarily a life tenant in possession of personal property is a trustee to preserve the principal for the remaindermen to whom it may pass on his death. In this case, however, the widow had the right to dispose of the property in her lifetime, and as to such property as she did dispose of neither she nor her executor was bound to account to the remaindermen because they had no interest in it. If none of the husband's property remained at the time of the widow's death or could be found at that time, as stated by the defendant, it is evident that the widow had disposed if it. In Leggett v. Firth, supra, where there was a gift similar to that before us, of a life estate to the widow with a gift over on her death of the "remainder, if any," the court construed the gift as a gift of what might be left and it was held that a conveyance by the widow passed a good title in fee. In Swarthout v. Ranier, 143 N. Y. 499, 38 N. E. 726, the gift to the wife was of a more limited character, "to have and to hold for her comfort and support all of the above-named property if she needs the same during her natural lifetime, if she should outlive me," followed by a gift over. After the death of the widow the remaindermen sought to set aside a mortgage executed by her. This court held that presumptively the mortgage was executed by the wife in good faith for her support, and that, if there were extrinsic facts showing that it was executed in bad faith to defraud the remaindermen, the burden was on the remaindermen to prove the extrinsic facts. The presumption should be the same in this case if the estate of the husband has disappeared. We are therefore of opinion that the burden rested on the plaintiff to show that some part of the husband's estate passed to the defend cation of the interlocutory judgment made by the Appellate Division was correct. On ANDREW JERGENS CO., Respondent, v. WOODBURY et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 18, 1910.) Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 197 N. Y. 66, 90 N. E. 344. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. FARMERS' FIRE INS. ASS'N OF TOWNS OF GREENVILLE (Court of ApAND DURHAM, Respondent. peals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (116 App. Div. 60, 101 N. Y. Supp. 132), entered December 18, 1906, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to reform a policy of fire insurance and to recover upon the policy as reformed. Amasa J. Parker, Jr., for appellant. Danforth E. Ainsworth and George L. Rivenburgh, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. It does not follow, however, that the plaintiff is not entitled under any state of facts to recover, or that he is necessarily precluded by the account filed by the defendant. the accounting he may be able to show that the widow left a substantial estate. Almost the whole of the husband's estate was represented by government bonds and a deposit in a savings bank. The bonds matured and were paid. It is possible that these moneys might be traced into property which the widow left at her decease. Even if it were not possible to so trace this fund, if the widow left securities of property which did not proceed from other sources, a presumption might arise that they represented a part of the hysband's estate. We do not decide this question, for the record does not show what es tate the widow left nor its condition. It may be she left no property, or, if she left property, that it was insufficient to pay her debts. If the latter should be the case, it would be plain that she had expended all her husband's AUERBACH, Appellant, v. CURIE, Respondestate, and her creditors would be entitled ent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, Motion to dismiss an appeal from a to the appropriation of her own estate to the 1910.) satisfaction of their debts without diminu- judgment of the Appellate Division of the Sution by any claim on the part of the remain-preme Court in the First Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 945, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1093), endermen under the husband's will. The rights tered July 13, 1909, affirming a judgment in faof the parties cannot be determined without vor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed proof of all these matters. The plaintiff may by the court in an action to recover for servThe moices alleged to have been rendered. be entitled to relief, but he has pursued an en- tion was made upon the grounds that the action tirely too summary method of obtaining it. was one for services, the judgment of affirmance unanimous, and permission to appeal had not been obtained. W. Wickham Smith and Charles Curie, Jr., for the motion. J. Stewart Ross, opposed. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by directing that the accounting under the interlocutory judgment, as modified, proceed, and in other respects affirmed, without costs in this court to either party. GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, MEMORANDUM DECISIONS. and ANDERSEN, Respondent, V. PENNSYL (Court of VANIA STEEL CO., Appellant. Appeals of New York. Feb. 8, 1910.) Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (132 App. Div. 928, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1092), entered July 7, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendant, his employer. H. Snowden Marshall and Theodore Megaarden, for appellant. Henry M. Earle and John Ingle, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT. WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WILLARD LARTLETT, J., not voting. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. BARNES, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 8, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (128 App. Div. 916, 113 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered November 19, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned by defendant's negligence. See, also, 128 App. Div. 918, 113 N. Y. Supp. 1125. Harry D. Sanders and Louis E. Desbecker, for appellant. A. C. McCall, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. BARNETT, Respondent, v. VAUGHAN INSTITUTE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4. 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 921, 119 N. Y. Supp. 45), entered October 16, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an injunction to restrain the defendant from using certain premises as a sanitarium or hospital in See, alleged violation of a restrictive covenant. also, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1113. George T. Hogg, | of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) Mofor appellant. George B. Covington, for re- tion to amend remittitur denied, with $10 costs spondent. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 197 N. Y. 81, 90 N. E. 456. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., absent. BARTLETT, Respondent, V. HUNTER ARMS CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 905, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1111), entered March 17, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his em ployer. Also motion to dismiss said appeal. See, also, 132 App. Div. 945, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1128. Elisha B. Powell, for appellant. ton B. Parsons, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Motion denied. affirmed, with costs. Bur- CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, BREMER, Appellant, v. BREMER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (125 App. Div. 918, 109 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered April 10, 1908, affirming a final judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint pursuant to an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining demurrers thereto in an ac tion to have the will of John H. Bremer, deceased, declared void and to impress a lien upon the real estate of said decedent. William E. Warland, for appellant. John H. Corwin, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. BRENNAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW HIS-YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 267, 114 N. Y. Supp. 578), entered January 21, 1909, which affirmed a judgment entered upon an order of the court at a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and dismissing the complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. Robert Stewart, for appellant. Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (James D. Bell and James W. Covert, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. BAYLEY, v. BEEKMAN et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 28, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 888, 118 N. Y. Supp. 286), entered July 9, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term (62 Misc. Rep. 567, 117 N. Y. Supp. 88), in an action to obtain a construction of the will of Mary E. Bayley, deceased. William Pierrepont Williams, for appellants. Henry Fletcher and Jerome D. Gedney, for respondent Bayley. Henry R. Beekman and A. P. Bachman, for respondents Beekman and others. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, without costs, on authority of Matter of Paton, 111 N. Y. 487. 18 N. E. 625. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER. and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. BEATTIE et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK & L. I. CONST. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied. with $10 costs. See 196 N. Y. 346, 89 N. E. 831. See, also, 124 App. Div. 926, 109 N. Y. Supp. 1124. BERTINA v. PEOPLE'S TRUST CO., et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 918, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered July 2, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover upon a promissory note. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal presented no questions of law for review. See, also, 134 App. Div. 941, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1094. Edmund F. Driggs, for the motion. John P. Judge, opposed. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CAFFRY, Appellant, v. WILKIE et al.. Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 896, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1114), entered February 11, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an ac funds. Carlisle Norwood, Gustavus W. Rawson, tion to trace and impress a trust on certain and Maurice Goodman, for appellant. William Rand, Jr., and Arthur F. Gotthold, for respond CAROLAN, Respondent, v. O'DONNELL et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 8, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (128 App. Div. 924, 112 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered November 12, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to determine the validity of a written instrument propounded as the will of Neal In re BOARD OF RAPID TRANSIT R. O'Donnell, deceased. James W. Osborne and PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. O'Brien, Joseph H. Fargis, and James L. Clare, for respondent. / PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on the ground that there was a question of fact as to the mental capacity of the testator which should have been submitted to the jury. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, and WERNER, JJ., concur. VANN, J., dissents. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not voting. HISCOCK, J., taking no part. CORCORAN, Respondent, v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 28, 1910.) ApCLEMENT, State Excise Com'r, v. CURTIS peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial De4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appartment (128 App. Div. 926, 112 N. Y. Supp. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the 1126), entered November 12, 1908, affirming a Fourth Judicial Department (129 App. Div. judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a 934, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered January 21, verdict and an order denying a motion for a 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff new trial in an action to recover for the death entered upon a verdict and an order denying a of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been ocmotion for a new trial in an action to recover casioned by the defendant's negligence. Bayupon a liquor tax bond. Charles Newton, for ard H. Ames, Walter Henry Wood, and James appellant. Daniel A. Reed and Russell Headley, L. Quackenbush, for appellant. Gilbert D. for respondent. Lamb, for respondent. CLEMENT, State Excise Com'r, Respondent, v. EMPIRE STATE SURETY CO., Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 910, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1100), entered July 21, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover upon a liquor tax bond. Hugo Hirsch and Ferd W. Buermeyer, for appellant. Royal R. Scott and Russell Headley, for respondent. et al. CLEMENT, State Excise Com'r, v. VOGEL (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (132 App. Div. 947, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1131), entered May 29, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a liquor tax bond. Charles Newton, for appellant. Daniel A. Reed and Russell Headley, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with CONE, Appellant, V. LACKAWANNA STEEL CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (128 App. Div. 906, 112 N. Y. Supp. 1125), entered October 7, 1908, sustaining defendant's exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, and granting a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the defendant, his employer. Frank Gibbons, for appellant. Ralph S. Kent, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY and WERNER, JJ., dissent. CURRY v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 1, 1910.) Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Action by Patrick Curry against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (126 App. Div. 934, 110 N. Y. Supp. 1126), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. D. A. Marsh, for appellant. Henry F. Cochrane, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury on the question whether the defendant's servants used excessive and unnecessary force in removing the plaintiff from the defendant's car, and that, hence, the motion for a nonsuit was properly denied, and that the question argued by defendant's counsel, as to the obligation of the defendant's employés to accept the $5 bill tendered and give change therefor is not raised by any exception which this court can review. Judgment affirmed. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. In re CURTISS. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 547, 119 N. Y. Supp. 556), entered November 20, 1909, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion to set aside an order appointing a committee of the estate of Julia M. Curtiss, an alleged incompetent, and denied said motion. See, also, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1120. L. Laflin Kellogg, Alfred C. Petté, and William K. Hartpence, for appellant. Morgan J. O'Brien, Gratz Nathan, and Philip S. Dean, for respondents. that the exceptions were frivolous and presented no question of law for review. Percy S. Lansdowne, for the motion. Charles Newton, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. EAGEN, Respondent, v. BUFFALO UNION TERMINAL R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 995, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered November 30, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a for the death of the plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned by defendant's negligence. The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions were frivolous and the appeal taken for purposes of delay only. F. G. Bagley, for the motion. Alfred Becker, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. DEFRIN, Respondent, v. GOLDSTEIN, Ap-motion for a new trial in an action to recover pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 895, 113 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered November 27, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action by an employé to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the defendant's negligence. E. Clyde Sherwood and Frank v. Johnson, for appellant. Clinton B. Taylor and Eugene I. Yuells, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., dissents on the grounds, first, that the plaintiff has failed to make out his charge of negligence against defendant; and, second, that the employer's liability act is entirely insufficient. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, J., absent. In re DE GROOT. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (120 N. Y. Supp. 1121), entered January 6, 1910, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term directing a recount of certain void and protested ballots and the addition or exclusion thereof. See, also, 120 N. Y. Supp. 295; 119 N. Y. Supp. 1140. Franklin M. Tomlin, for applicant. Leander B. Faber, for respondent McLaughlin. PER CURIAM. Order appealed from reversed as to ballots marked Exhibits Nos. 20, 29, 30, 31, and 36, which said ballots were de clared void by the Appellate Division, and which said ballots are hereby declared valid. Order appealed from further reversed as to ballot marked Exhibit No. 55, which said ballot was counted by the Appellate Division, and which said ballot is hereby rejected. In all other respects the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs to either party. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. DELL, Respondent, v. FLETCHER et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (120 N. Y. Supp. 1121), entered December 13, 1909, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the Erie County Court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the find ENDRESS, Appellant, v. WILLEY et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (122 App. Div. 110, 106 N. Y. Supp. 726), entered December 16, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to construe a will. Joseph W. Middlebrook and Clare A. Pickard, for appellant. George Clinton and B. G. Foss, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., absent. FALKOWSKA, Respondent, v. ZEMRAK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (131 App. Div. 926, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered March 22, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to reJohn V. Maloney, for appelcover for slander. lant. Julius A. Grass, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. FERRARI, Appellant, v. RACEY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (128 App. Div. 904, 112 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered October 28, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon an alleged agreement by defendant's testator to pay a certain sum of money for legal serv George H. Francoeur and John J. Dwyer, for ices. Charles E. Le Barbier, for appellant. respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. |