sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (132 App. Div. 634, 117 N. Y. Supp. 496), entered June 8, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover the price of advertising certain election notices. See, also, 89 N. E. 1106. Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (Terence Farley and Theodore Connoly, of counsel), for appellant. Thomas W. Churchill and Ernest W. Marlow, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN. WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. MOSBACH, Respondent, v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 8. 1910.)` Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 543, 114 N. Y. Supp. 282), entered January 6, 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 defendant's negligence. Bayard H. Ames, Walter Henry Wood, and James L. Quackenbush, for appellant. James G. Gra MOWBRAY, Appellant, v. DE FOREST, Respondent. (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 (132 App. Div. 924, 116 N. Y. Supp. 1142), entered May 22, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee in an action for an accounting. See, also, 133 App. Div. 892, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1126: 130 App. Div. 904, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1133. Henry Parsons, for appellant. Herbert R. Limburg, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. MUTKA, Appellant. v. HEBREW SHELTERING GUARDIAN SOCIETY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 8. 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 923. 114 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered January 6, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendaut entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, her employer. Herbert C. Smyth, for appellant. Frank Verner Johnson, E. Clyde Sherwood, and Harry S. Austin, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT. VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. NEAGLE. Appellant, v. SYRACUSE. B. & N. Y. R. CO., Respondent, et al. (Court of peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 936, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered February 24, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have occurred through the negligence of the defendant, his employer. Frank C. Sargent, for appellant. A. D. Jenney, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. NIAGARA FALLS HYDRAULIC POWER & MFG. CO.. Respondent, v. SCHERMERHORN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Div. 442, 117 N. Y. Supp. 10), entered May 5, . in the Fourth Judicial Department (132 App. 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plain tiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term (60 Misc. Rep. 209, 111 N. Y. Supp. 576), a jury having been waived, in an action to recover the value of certain buildings, fixtures and appurtenances erected by the Acker Process Company upon lands leased to it by plaintiff and seized and disposed of by defendant trustee. John L. Romer and Charles M. Harrington, for Louis Marshall, for appellant. respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinions below. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. NORRIS et al., Respondents, v. HOFFMAN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 18, 1910.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 596, 118 N. Y. Supp. 156) entered July 15, 1909, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to have an easement declared abandoned. The following question was certified: "Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants?" See. also, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1102. Charles P. Northrop and Charles H. Edwards, for appellants. Louis Frankel, Job E. Hedges, and Julian B. Beaty, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Question certified answered in the affirmative. CULLEN, C. J., and, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN. WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. In re O'REILLY. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (119 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered December 3, 1909, which affirmed an order of the Kings County Surrogate's Court granting a motion to vacate a decree settling an intermediate account and granting permission to the respondent herein to file an amended account. See, also, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1138; 125 App. Div. 619, 110 N. Y. Supp. 80. Walter Jeffreys Carlin, for appelJames P. Judge, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs. lant. CULLEN, C. J.. and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT. HISCOCK. and CHASE, JJ.. concur. EDWARD T. BART Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the PEOPLE ex rel. DEISTER, Respondent, v. Third Judicial Department (125 App. Div. 296, WINTERMUTE, Appellant. (Court of Ap-109 N. Y. Supp. 866), entered April 4, 1908, peals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal which affirmed a determination of the defendant from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 65, 118 N. Y. Supp. 712), entered September 20, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action of quo warranto. Richard H. Thurston, for appellant. Michael Danaher, John J. Crowley, and Edward R. O'Malley, Atty. Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. fixing the amount of a franchise tax against the relator. Charles K, Allen, Joseph P. Coughlin, and Alfred A. Cook, for appellant. Edward R. O'Malloy, Atty. Gen. (Franklin Kennedy, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLET, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. POTTER, Respondent, v. BROWNE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 197 N. Y. 288, 90 N. E. 812. PEOPLE ex rel. GRIMSHAW, Appellant, v. PRENDERGAST. County Register, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate RIDDLE, Respondent, V. MACFADDEN, Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New Judicial Department (132 App. Div. 937, 116 York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an N. Y. Supp. 1144), entered May 7, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendant to certify the relator's payrolls for part of the months of November and December, 1908. See, also, 133 App. Div. 931, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1133. Robert H. Wilson, for appellant. Jesse Fuller, Jr., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. KENNEDY, Appellant, v. O'DONNEL et al., Tax Com'rs, Respondents (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal in each of the above-entitled proceedings from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 237, 924, 117 N. Y. Supp. 488, 491), entered June 4, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term dismissing a writ of certiorari and confirming an assessment for purposes of taxation. Artemas B. Smith, for appellant. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (Curtis A. Peters and George H. Folwell, of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Orders affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J.. and VANN. WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, J., absent. appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 898, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1142), entered February 9, 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 unauthorized publication of plaintiff's portrait. The motion was made upon the ground that the aplaw. See, also, 60 Misc. Rep. 569, 112 N. Y. peal was not taken within the time required by Supp. 498; 116 App. Div. 353, 101 N. Y. Supp. 606. Rufus L. Weaver, for the motion. Paris S. Russell, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, without costs, but without prejudice to an application on the argument to dismiss the appeal for lack of permission. RUBENSTEIN, Respondent, v. RADT, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme 11. 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an Court in the First Judicial Department (134 November 8, 1909, which affirmed an order diApp. Div. 966, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1143), entered recting that the issues raised by the separate defense and counterclaim in defendant's answer be placed upon the Special Term calendar for trial. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was unauthorized, being taken from an intermediate order not finally determining the action. See, also. 126 App. Div. 917, 110 N. Y. Supp. 1143. John W. Searing, for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. PEOPLE ex rel. MANHATTAN SILK CO., Appellant, v. KELSEY, State Comptroller. Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 18, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the RYDER, Respondent. v. MOUNTAIN LAKE Third Judicial Department (125 App. Div. 913, ICE CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New 109 N. Y. Supp. 1141), entered April 4, 1908. York. Jan. 28, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment. which affirmed a determination of the defendant of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court fixing the amount of a franchise tax against in the Second Judicial Department (133 App. the relator. Myer Nussbaum, Alfred A. Cook, Div. 933, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1139), entered June and Charles K. Allen, for appellant. Edward 30, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plainR. O'Malley, Atty. Gen. (Franklin Kennedy, of tiff entered upon a verdict and an order denycounsel), for respondent. ing a motion for a new trial in an action by PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. an employé to recover for personal injuries alCULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BART-leged to have been sustained through the negLETT, VANN. WERNER, WILLARD BART-ligence of his employer. Frederick Hulse and LETT, HIS JOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. Elwood C. Smith, for appellant. Henry Kohl, for respondent. PEOPLE ex rel. MANHATTAN SILK CO., Appellant, v. MILLER, State Comptroller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 18, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. SATTERLY, Appellant, v. DEWICK et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 28, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 701, 114 N. Y. Supp. 354), entered January 11, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to set aside a devise contained in the will of Sarah A. Satterly, deceased. See, also, 131 App. Div. 909, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1143. Thomas J. Ritch, Jr., for appellant. Rowland Miles, for respond ents. corporation. Louis Marshall and Abraham Benedict, for appellant. Morris Cohn, Jr., for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. LETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTCULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. SIMPSON, Respondent, v. SIMPSON et al., Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 200, 113 N. Y. Supp. 370), entered January 6, 1909, which affirmed a judgment of Special Term adjudging the will of Simon M. Simpson, deceased, to be void. Henry Woolman and Achilles H. Kohn, for appellants. S. Livingston Samuels, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. SCHIEFFELIN, Appellant, v, MCCLELLAN et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (120 N. Y. Supp. 215), entered December 22, 1909, which reversed an order of Special & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals SINGER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. Term granting a motion for an injunction pen- of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from a dente lite in a taxpayer's action to restrain the granting of certain modifications to a franchise judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supermitting the operation of street surface cars preme Court in the Second Judicial Department over the Queens Borough bridge and through (132 App. Div. 890, 116 N. Y. Supp. 294), encertain streets in Queens Borough. See, also, tered May 10, 1909, which modified and affirm120 N. Y. Supp. 1141. Julius Henry Cohened as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff and Albert S. Bard, for appellant. Archibald entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly denying a motion for a new trial in an action and Terence Farley, of counsel), for respond to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate ents. Clarence Lexow and Arthur C. Hume, alleged to have been occasioned by the defendfor South Shore Traction Co., intervening. ant's negligence. John F. Brennan and Mortimer B. Patterson, for appellant. Albert A. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, without Wray, Edward Frank Glover, and William Mccosts, on the ground that all the proper parties Cauley, for respondent. are not before the court. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. SEWELL, Appellant, v. UNDERHILL, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) PER CURIAM. nied, with $10 costs. E. 430. Motion for reargument de- PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. SMITH, Appellant, v. ROCHESTER RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 8, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 847, 118 N. Y. Supp. 78), entered July 3, 1909, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff SHIELS, Appellant, v. STAFFORD, Re-entered upon a verdict and an order denying a spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. motion for a new trial and granted a new trial Feb. 8, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the in an action to recover for personal injuries Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the alleged to have been sustained through defendFirst Judicial Department (131 App. Div. 932, ant's negligence. C. D. Kiehel, for appellant. 116 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered April 15, 1909, W. A. Matson, for respondent. affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover the balance of a sum of money alleged to have been deposited with the defendant. J. Warren Greene and Frederick C. Gladden, for appellant. James M. Beck, for respondent. In re SII ENT WRITING MACH. CO. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 18, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 995, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1144), entered November 24, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying an applica PER CURIAM. Order of Appellate Division reversed, and judgment of trial court affirmed, with costs in both courts, on dissenting opinion of Kruse, J., below. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. SPARHAWK, Appellant, v. GILLIN PRINTING CO., Respondent. (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 First Judicial Department (131 App. Div. 900, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1145), entered April 5, 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 goods sold and delivered. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was frivolous, the rec STATE BANK v. WILCHINSKY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 18. 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 948, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1144), entered October 15, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing the appellant herein to pay the damages resulting from his refusal to complete his purchase of certain premises at a sale in foreclosure. See, also, 65 Misc. Rep. 162, 119 N. Y. Supp. 131. Edward W. S. Johnston, for appellant. Benjamin N. Cardozo and Alfred Lyons, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. STRAMMER, Respondent, v. MENDELSON, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York, Feb. 15, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (119 N. Y. Supp. 1146), entered December 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 for conversion. The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the only exceptions appearing in the record were frivolous. See, also, 132 App. Div. 899, 116 N. Y. Supp. 1149. Joseph A. Seidman, for the motion. J. Stewart Ross, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. SZAG, Respondent, v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 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. 1148), entered December 21, 1909, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. The motion was made upon the grounds that the exceptions presented no question of law for review, and that the appeal had been taken for purpose of delay only. Ralph S. Kent, for the motion. Frank Rumsey, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. TRAVELERS' INS. CO., Respondent, v. HOTCHKISS. Superintendent or Insurance, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment entered September 17, 1909, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 89, 118 N. Y. Supp. 873), which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and directed final judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to restrain the defendant from revoking a certificate authorizing the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, to transact the business of life insurance in the state of New York. Edward R. O'Malley. Atty. Gen. (Edward H. Letchworth, of counsel), for 91 N.E.-71 TURNER v. QUILLIN et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (121 App. Div. 920, 106 N. Y. Supp. 1148). entered November 1, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action for partition. Richard Krause and David B. Melick, for appellant. Stephen H. Little, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with . CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. costs. VAN LOAN, Respondent, V. TUCKER, SPEYERS & 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 First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 879, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered January 27, 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 on an alleged contract for services. See, also, 130 App. Div. 901, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1147. Austen G. Fox and Frank M. Patterson, for appellant. Otto Horwitz and Frederic Cyrus Leubuscher, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs. Judgment affirmed, with CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. VROOM, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 858, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1063), entered January 13, 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 occurred through the negligence of the defendant, his employer. Alfred L. Becker, for appellant. H. C. Minard and Charles L. Feldman, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. WAIDELICH, Respondent, v. BURNHAM, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 11, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment entered November 16, 1909, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 963, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1148), which reversed an order of the Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and reinstated said verdict upon plaintiff stipulating to a reduction of the same in her action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned by defendant's negligence. The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the appeal. Otto Horwitz, for the motion. Louis Lowenstein, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. WALTER et al. v. WALTER 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 First Judicial Department (133 App. Div. 893, 118 N. Y. Supp. 268), entered June 28, 1909, which affirmed a judgment of Special Term construing the will of Emanuel Walter, deceased. See, also, 131 App. Div. 903, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1148. Benjamin G. Paskus, Norman P. S. Schloss, and Emil Goldmark, for appellants. John Frankenheimer and Henry Walter, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. W. H. BRACE CO., Appellant, v. KRAFT et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 25, 1910.) Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 196 N. Y. 468, 89 N. E. 1093. WHITE, Appellant, v. DEVENDORF, Respondent. (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 (122 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered October 20, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to enforce an alleged agreement by defendant's intestate to pay to or leave by will to plaintiff a certain sum of money. See, also, 127 App. Div. 791, 111 N. Y. Supp. 815. E. C. Emerson, for appellant. Joseph Nellis, for respondent. ZIEGLER, Respondent, v. BELL TELEPHONE CO. OF BUFFALO, Appellant. (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 (128 App. Div. 884, 112 N. Y. Supp. 1151), entered October 2, 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 personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. Clinton B. Gibbs, for appellant. Ford White, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. ÆTNA INS. CO. v. PENN et al. (No. 10,916.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 19, 1909.) Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati. On rehearing. Paxton & Warrington and James J. Muir, for plaintiff in error. W. A. Hicks, W. F. North, and Obermeyre & Sharp, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Former judgment (80 Ohio St. 714, 89 N. E. 1115) adhered to. ALFORD v. COMPTON et al. (No. 11.040.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 5, 1909.) Error to Circuit Court, Putnam County. Watts & Moore, for plaintiff in error. Poe & Poe, Handy & Unverferth, and D. M. Bailey, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. SPEAR, DAVIS, and PRICE, JJ., concur. AMERICAN BONDING CO. OF BALTIMORE v. WAYNE COOPERAGE CO. (No. 11,303.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Feb. 8, 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Crawford County. Beer & Beer and J. Walter Wright, for plaintiff in error. R. V. Sears and R. W. Johnston, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. ANDREWS et al. v. BARBER et al. (No. 10.947.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 11, 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Lucas County. On rehearing. Brown, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams and Donn C. Mitchell, for plaintiffs in error. Curtis T. Johnson, Smith & Beckwith and Solders, Thayer & Mansfield, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Former judgment (80 Ohio St. 748, 89 N. E. 1115) adhered to. SUMMERS, C. J., and SPEAR and PRICE, JJ., concur. ATWILL v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS Circuit Court, Paulding County. John W. Zuber, for plaintiff in error. George H. Bayliss and Snook & Wilcox, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, DAVIS, and PRICE, JJ., con YOUNG et al., Respondents, v. DUBOIS, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New OF PAULDING COUNTY. (No. 11,201.) (SuYork. Jan. 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judg-preme Court of Ohio. Oct. 19, 1909.) Error to ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 902, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1150) entered March 8. 1909, which affirmed a judgment of Special Term (60 Misc. Rep. 381, 113 N. Y. Supp. 456), construing the will of Mary D. Jones, deceased. Charles Haines, for appellant. Carl A. Hansmann and R. E. Dwight, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WILLARD BART cur. Nov. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. v. LINN et al. (No. 11,628.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. 16, 1909.) Error to Circuit Court, Holmes County. George W. Sharp and Arrel, Wilson & Harrington, for plaintiff in error. J. & E. G. |