페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SUMMERFIELD, | ple of the state of New York, on the relation Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of Daniel S. Coleman, against the city of New First Department. July 13, 1904.) Proceed- York. L. O. Van Doren, for appellant. T. ings by the people of the state of New York Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Order afagainst Lawrence Summerfield. M. D. Steuer, firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. for appellant. R. C. Taylor, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

PEOPLE ex rel. COSSEY, Appellant, V.

GROUT, Comptroller, Respondent. (Supreme PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TODD, Appellant. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- June 29, 1904.) Application by the people of partment. July 13, 1904.) Proceedings by the state of New York, on relation of Harry the people of the state of New York against Cossey, against Edward M. Grout, as compWilliam E. Todd. J. H. Heinzelman, for ap- troller, for mandamus. From an order denying pellant. E, Sandford, for the People. No the writ, the applicant appeals. Affirmed. L. opinion. Judgment affirmed.

L. Kellogg, for appellant. T. Farley, for re

spondent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TRZASALSKI,

VAN BRUNT, P. J. We are of the opinion Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- that the appellant should proceed in the ordision, Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.). Pro- nary way by action in order to recover the ceedings by the people of the state of New moneys claimed in this proceeding. In that York against George Trzasalski.

way the facts can be clearly presented to the PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- court, and the questions involved can be disfirmed.

posed of without resorting to inferences. WithWILLIAMS, J., dissents.

out expressing any opinion upon the questions

of law involved, and without either affirming or PEOPLE ex rel. BLAIR v. TULLY, Com'r. disaffirming the view taken by the court below, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- we think the order appealed from should be

a ffirmed, with costs. partment. July 13, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the re- O'BRIEN, MCLAUGHLIN, and LAUGHlation of George Blair, against James H. Tully, LIN, JJ., concur. HATCH, J., dissents. commissioner. L. Brouner, for relator. J. F. O'Brien, for respondent. No opinion. Writ PEOPLE ex rel. DULFER v. GREENE, Podismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with costs. lice. Com'r, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, Second Department. June 24, 1904.) PEOPLE ex rel. BROOKLYN ALCATRAZ Proceedings by the people of the state of New ASPHALT CO., Respondent, v. LITTLETON York, on the relation of Theodore A. H. Dulfer, et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate against Francis V. Greene, as police commisDivision, Second Department, September 29, sioner of the city of New York, and another. 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state PER CURIAM. Determination annulled, on of New York, on the relation of the Brooklyn argument, with costs. Alcatraz Asphalt Company, against Martin W.

HIRSCHBERG, O. J., not voting. Littleton, as president of the borough of Brooklyn of the city of New York, and others. No

PEOPLE ex rel. EASTMOND v, OAKLEY, opinion. Appeal withdrawn.

Water Supply. Com'r, et al. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, Second Department. June PEOPLE ex rel. BUCHANAN v. CAN-24, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the TINE, Public Safety Com'r. (Supreme Court, state of New York, on the relation of John Appellate Division, Third Department. June Edward Eastmond, against John T. Oakley, as 30, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the commissioner of water supply, etc., and another. state of New York, on the relation of Peter No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, Buchanan, against Edward B. Cantine, as com- with $10 costs. missioner of public safety of the city of Albany. No opinion. Writ dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

PEOPLE ex rel. GARVEY v. PARTRIDGE,

Police Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiPEOPLE ex rel. BÚHLER v. HUMPHREY, Proceedings by the people of the state of New

vision, Second Department. June 24, 1904.) County Judge, Respondent. (Supreme Court, York, on the relation of Daniel S. Garvey, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 24, 1904.) In the matter of the application of against John N. Partridge, police commissioner, the people of the state of New York, on the relation of John Buhler, for a peremptory writ with costs, on the authority of People ex rel.

PER CURIAM. Determination annulled, of mandamus against Burt Jay Humphrey, as county judge of Queens county. No opinion. Hoffman v. Partridge (decided by this court Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- | April 15, 1904) 87 N. Y. Supp. 680. ments.

PEOPLE ex rel. GRUENBERG, Appellant,

V. MCCLELLAN, Mayor, Respondent. (SuPEOPLE ex rel. COLEMAN, Appellant, v. preme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartCITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Su- ment. July 13, 1904.) Proceedings by the preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart people of the state of New York, on the relament. June 24, 1904.) Proceedings by the peo- tion of John Gruenberg, against George B. Mc

etc.

and 123 New York State Reporter Clellan, Mayor, etc. J. Gruenberg, for ap- PORTER, Respondent, V. MAGNETIC pellant. T. Connoly, for respondent. No opin- SEPARATOR CO., Appellant. (Supreme ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis- Court, Appellate Division, First Department. bursements.

June 24, 1904.) Action by Alexander T. 'Por

ter against the Magnetic Separator Company. PEOPLE ex rel. JAMES et al. 7. CRAN- for respondent. No opinion. Order afirmed,

H. D. Merchant, for appellant. M. Fitzgerald, DALL, Highway Com'r. (Supreme Court, Ap. I with $10 costs and disbursements. pellate Division, Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state

PRESS, Appellant, v. FEUCHTWANGER, of New York, on the relation of John James and Milton M. Turner, against Frank Cran- vision, First Department. July 13, 1904.) Ac

Respondent, Supreme Court, Appellate Didall, as sole commissioner of highways of the tion by T. Channon Press against Abraham H. town of Cameron. No opinion. Writ of cer- Feuchtwanger. J. A. Hodge, for appellant. C. tiorari sustained, and action of highway com. H. Friedrich, for respondent. No opinion. missioner annulled, with $25 costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. PEOPLE ex rel. LANGDON, Appellant, v. In re QUARRY ROAD. (Supreme Court

. GREENE, Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme Appellate Division, First Department. June Court, Appellate Division, First Department. 29, 1904.) In the matter of the Quarry Road. July 13, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of J. Dunn, for appellant. Joseph Flannery, for the state of New York, on the relation of Mar- respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with tin Langdon, against Francis V. Greene, as costs. commissioner. W. S. Gordon, for appellant. T. Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with

RANDALL V. HOLBROOK, CABOT, ETC. costs.

CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department. June 24, 1904.) Action by Mar

tin H. Randall, as administrator, against the
PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & Holbrook, Cabot, etc., Company.' No opinion
H. R. R. CO. et al. v. BOARD OF RAILROAD Motion denied, with $10 costs.
COM'RS, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, Third Department. September 20,

RAY V. UNITED TRACTION CO. (S1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, upon the relation of the New preme Court, Appellate Division, Third De York Central & Hudson River Railroad Com-partment. September 20, 1904.) Action by pany and others, against the board of railroad Mary A. Ray against the United Traction commissioners of the state of New York and Company. No opinion. Motion denied. others. No opinion. That part of motion asking for leave to intervene granted. Remainder RICKETTS, Respondent, v. RAMSDELLE denied.

al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellat Division, Second Department. September

1904.) Action by Mary J. Ricketts against PEOPLE ex rel. MARKS, Respondent, v. Henry Powell Ramsdell, James A. P. Ramsdell

. WELLS et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, and Homer S. Ramsdell, individually and as Appellate Division, First Department. July 13, executors, etc. 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Frederick W. connected with the acceptance of the juror

PER CURIAM. We think the circumstances Marks, against James L. Wells and others. G. whose impartiality is in question in these pro S. Coleman, for appellants. A. L. Guiterman, ceedings were such as to require the granting for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, of the motion for a new trial in the interest: with $10 costs and disbursements.

of justice. 'The order denying such motion

should therefore be reversed, but upon pas PEOPLE ex rel. PARSLOE v. ERLANGER. ment by the appellants of the costs of the trial (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- within 20 days from the entry of this order partment. June 29, 1904.). Proceedings by Order reversed on the condition named, and the people of the state of New York, on the new trial granted; costs to abide the event. relation of Charles Parsloe, against Mitchell L. On the failure of the appellants to comply with Erlanger. No opinion. Motion granted, with the condition, order affirmed, with costs. $10 costs.

HOOKER, J., dissents. PEOPLE rel. UVALDE ASPHALT

ROCHESTER TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT PAV. CO., Respondent, v. LITTLETON et al., CO. v. TRUESDALE. (Supreme Court, ArAppellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- pellate Division, Fourth Department. Septemvision, Second Department. September 29, ber 27, 1904.) Action by the Rochester Trust 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state & Safe Deposit Company, as administrator, etc., of New York, on the relation of the Uvalde against George Truesdale. No opinion. Vo Asphalt Paving Company, against Martin W. tion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Littleton, as president

of the borough of Brooklyn, and George W. Tillson, as chief engineer ROCKET et al., Respondents, F. DOUGof the bureau of highways, borough of Brook- LAS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate lyn. No opinion. Appeal withdrawn.

Division, Second Department. July 28, 1904.) leases made made.

ex

[ocr errors]

Action by Edward Rocket and Stephen Brown Second Department. July 28, 1904.). Action against Hugh Douglas. No opinion. Judg- by Louise Schmidt against Max Resnick. No ment and order unanimously affirmed, with opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court afcosts.

firmed, with costs.

ROE, Respondent, v. SMITH et al.,. AP-KNIT GOODS MFG. CO., Appellant.

SCHOEBEL, Respondent, v. AMERICAN pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

(SuSecond Department. September 29, 1904.) Ac preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Detion by George M. Roe against Harry B.partment. July 28, 1904.) Action by Walter Smith and Charles P. Smith, as executors, etc., Manufacturing Company. No opinion., Judg:

Schoebel against the American Knit Goods of Charles P. Smith, deceased. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

ment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with

costs. costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Gaynor at Special Term, 85 N. Y. Supp. 527.

SCOTT V. TICONDEROGA PULP & PA. ROGERS et al. v. INGERSOLL et al. (Su- PER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, preme Court, Appellate Division, First De- Third Department. September 20, 1904.) Ac partment. June 29, 1904.) Action by John tion by John J. Scott against the Ticonderoga Z. Rogers, impleaded, against Robert H. In- Pulp & Paper Company. No opinion. Motion gersoll and another. No opinion. Unless ap- granted, with $10 costs. pellant pays $50 in 10 days, appeal dismissed.

SCUDDER, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ROSENFELD y. LANCASHIRE INS. CO. ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apet al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, pellate Division, First Department. July 13. Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.) Action by 1904.) Action by Frank S. Scudder against the Mortimer C. Rosenfeld against the Lancashire Interurban Street Railway Company. From Insurance Company and 19 other defendant a judgment of the Appellate Term, affirming a companies.

judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of PER CURIAM. Motion to correct decision D. Cravath, for appellant. Harcourt Bull, for

plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Paul of this court denied, without costs. Held that,

respondent. the order made by the trial court denying the motions for new trials upon the ground of new

HATCH, J. The question which I regarded ly discovered evidence having been reversed by as controlling the decision in Topham v. This this court, said order, so denying said motions; Defendant (decided herewith) 89 N. Y. Supp. did not furnish the basis for taxing costs upon 298, is not presented by the present record. such denial; but the rights of the parties should The lease made in this case shows it to have be taken care of in proceedings for taxation been subsequent to May 1, 1891, and it is not or retaxation of costs, and not by motion hera claimed that there were any other

of the Third Avenue Railroad or the Metropolitan Street Railway Company prior thereto.

Consequently such question is not involved. SAMMONS, Appellant, v. CITY OF GLOV- Neither does the pleading nor the proof in this ERSVILLE. Respondent. (Supreme Court, case raise the question.of compliance with secAppellate Division, Third Department. June tion 104 of the railroad law (Laws 1892, p. 30, 1904.) Action by Sampson Sammons 1406, c. 676), by showing that suitable regula. against the city of Gloversville.

tions were made for the issuance of transfers PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 in the promotion of the public convenience, as is costs and disbursements, on opinion in Sponen- expressed in the Topham Case. It follows, burg v. City of Gloversville, 89 N. Y. Supp. therefore, that the determination of the Ap19.

pellate Term should be affirmed, with costs. PARKER, P. J., dissents.

PATTERSON and LAUGHLIN, JJ., conSAXE, Appellant, v. OGDEN et al., Respond- INGRAHAM, J. (dissenting). My views of ents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- the construction to be given to section 103 of ond Department. July 28, 1904.) Action by the railroad law (chapter 676, p. 1406, Laws Sigmund Saxe against Kate T. Ogden and Al- 1892) are indicated in the case of Topham v. Infred Ogden. No opinion. Judgment modified, terurban Street Railway Co. (decided hereby striking out the words "upon the merits," with) 89 N. Y. Supp. 298; and, if I am correct, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. this judgment must be reversed. The com

plaint alleges that the Metropolitan Street SCHAGHTICOKE POWDER CO. et al. v. Railway Company had, for one year prior to GREENWICH & J. RY. CO. et al. (Supreme April 8, 1902, controlled and operated several Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. lines of street surface railroads in the city of June 30, 1904.) Action by the Schaghticoke New York; that one of the said lines had been, Powder Company and another against the on the 8th day of April, 1900, leased to the Greenwich & Johnsonville Railway Company said Metropolitan Street Railway Company by and another. No opinion. Judgment unani- the Third Avenue Railroad Company; that at mously affirmed, with costs.

the time of such lease the other lines of rail

way, which included the Amsterdam Avenue SCHMIDT, Respondent, v. RESNICK, Ap-line,' were controlled and operated by the Metpellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ropolitan Street Railway Company; that on

cur.

and 123 New York State Reporter the 29th of June, 1903, the plaintiff boarded a George A. Seger and another against Ernst car running north on Amsterdam avenue, paid Grund. T. Baumeister, for appellant. M. his fare, and asked for a transfer to enable Kamber, for respondents. No opinion. Order him to ride to a point on the 125th Street Rail. afirmed, with sio costs and disbursements. road, which had been leased to the Metropolitan Street Railway Company by the Third In re SEMPER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Avenue Railroad Company, both of these lines Division, Fourth Department. May, 1904.) In being operated by the defendant, which re- the matter of the application of William J. quest was refused. And plaintiff asked to re- Semper, of the village of Brownville, N. Y., for cover the penalty provided for a violation of the a writ of certiorari to review the determination section. The lease of the Third Avenue Rail- of an inferior tribunal, namely, the board of road Company to the Metropolitan Street Rail- supervisors of Jefferson county. No opinion. way Company was introduced in evidence. It Writ dismissed, with $25 costs and disburserecites that the parties are street surface rail- ments. road companies organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, and that the lessor, the Third Avenue Railroad Company,

SHEPARD V. SHEPARD. (Supreme Court, owns and operates certain street surface rail Appellate Division, First Department. June 21, roads and railroad routes in the city of New 1904.) Action by Henry B. Shepard against York, which include the road on 125th street, Florence A. Shepard. and owns certain parcels of land in the city, PER CURIAM. Motion denied. and stock in certain other street surface railroad companies, and leases to the Metropolitan SHEPARD, Respondent, v. SHEPARD, ADStreet Railway Company "all the railroads of pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the party of the first part" thereinbefore men. First Department. June 29, 1904.) Action tioned, for 999 years, the lessee paying certain by Henry E. Shepard against Florence A. specified rent therefor, "to be used, maintained, Shepard. G. A. Stearns, for appellant. A. I. and operated by the party of the second part in Sire, for respondent. No opinion. Order afaccordance with the requirements of the char. firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ters and subject to the conditions of the grant to the party of the first part.” This lease only In re SILVERMAN. (Supreme Court, Apaffects the railroads owned and operated by pellate Division, First DepartmentJune 24, the Third Avenue Railroad Company, leased | 1904.) In the matter of Clementine W. Silto the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. verman. The lines before leased to or operated by the Salant, for respondent.

J. C. Weschler, for appellant. H.

No opinion. Order Metropolitan Company were not referred to or affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. in any way affected by this lease, and neither the lease nor the obligations assumed by either of the parties thereto was at all affected by TADY RY. CO.,

Appellant. (Supreme Court,

SIPPERLY, Respondent, V. SCHEXECthe ownership or interest of the Metropolitan Appellate Division, Third Department. June Company in any other street railroad. only "railroads or portions thereof embraced in 30, 1904.) Action by Ellis N. Sipperly against such contracts” were the lines of the Third the Schenectady Railway Company. No opinAvenue Railroad Company, which were leased to ion, Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, the Metropolitan Company; and as the statute

with costs. only requires the parties to the contract to give to a passenger a transfer "entitling such passen

SLATER, Appellant, v. SMADBECK et al. ger to one continuous trip to any point or por; Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dition of any railroad embraced in such contract,"

vision, Second Department. July 28, 1904.) it had no application to a line of railroad, al- Action by Thomas Slater against Louis Smad. though operated by a party to the contract, beck, Jennie Smadbeck, the Brentwood Plaza which was not as a fact embraced in the con- Company, and Donata Marconie. tract. The words "railroad or portions there. of" cannot, in my opinion, apply to all lines of firmed, with costs.

PER CURIAM. Interlocutory judgment afrailroad operated by either party to the con: tract which are not "embraced in the contract." HOOKER, J., dissents. It does not appear in the record when the Metropolitan Street Railway Company acquired

SMITH v. CAYUGA LAKE CEMENT CO. the right to operate the Amsterdam Avenue (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De line. It certainly cannot be presumed, so as partment. September 20, 1904.) Action by to make the defendant liable for a penalty, that Fannie J. Smith against the Cayuga Lake Ce the defendant is operating the Amsterdam Ave- ment Company. No opinion. Appeal dismissed. nue line under a lease or contract made after May 1, 1891. I think the determination should SMITH, Respondent, y. KING et al. Apbe reversed, with costs, and the complaint dis- pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, missed.

Second Department. June 24, 1904.) Action VAN BRUNT, P. J., also dissents.

by Nicholas Smith, an infant, against Jose Berre King and another. No opinion. Motion

for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied. SEGER et al., Respondents, v. GRUND, APpellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SMITH, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent. First Department. June 24, 1904.) Action by (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second

Departinent. July 28, 1904.) Jacob Neu, for SPAULDING, Appellant, v. MYERS, Re appellant. J. H. K. Blauvelt, for respondent. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 Elmer L. Spaulding against James T. Myers.

Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by costs and disbursements.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously WOODWARD, J. (dissenting). The question affirmed, with costs. fairly presented by this appeal is a new one, and seems to me to be of sufficient importance SPIEGELMAN, Respondent, v. UNION RY. to require an expression of my reason for dis- co. OF NEW YORK CITY,'Appellant. (Susent. "Rule 18 of the Supreme Court provides: preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De"In actions for divorce,

the affidavit partment. June 24, 1904.) . Action by Samuel (of service of summons and complaint]

Spiegelman against the Union Railway Comshall state what knowledge the affiant bad of pany of New York City. No opinion. Order the person served being the defendant and prop, resettled, so as to award but $10 costs on the er person to be served, and how he acquired dismissal of the appeal. such knowledge. The court may require the affiant to appear in court and be examined in SPRAGUE, Respondent, V. INTERBORrespect thereto, and, when service has been OUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant. made by the sheriff, the court must require the (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deofficer who made the service to appear and be partment. September 29, 1904.) Action by examined in like manner," etc. Section 3256 | Hettie Eliza Sprague against the Interborough. of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "A Rapid Transit Company. No opinion. Judgparty to whom costs are awarded in an action ment and order unanimously affirmed, with is entitled to include in his bill of costs his costs. necessary disbursements as follows: And such other reasonable, and necessary expenses, as are taxable, according to the course pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

STAIGER, Respondent, v. SOHT et al., Apand practice of the court, or by express pro- Second Department. July 28, 1904.) Action vision of law." In the absence of a single de. by Christopher Staiger against Peter Soht and cision upon the question, we cannot say what

others. has been the course and practice of the court

PER CURIAM. with respect to taxing as costs the necessary

Order affirmed, with $10. expenses resulting from sending to a distant costs and disbursements. county of the state a person who knows the HOOKER, J., dissents. defendant in a divorce proceeding to serve the summons and complaint, where the expense STEINAU et al., Appellants, V. WORTHhas been incurred in good faith in order to have INGTON et al., Respondents. (Supreme such person present at the trial, in pursuance Court, Appellate Division, First Department. of rule 18, supra. Upon principle, the reason June 24, 1904.) Action by Henrietta Steinau which demands the taxation of the expenses of and others against Joseph E. Worthington and printing the papers for a hearing, when required others. T. F. Donnelly, for appellants. H. by a rule of the court, with equal force calls o. Powell, for respondents. No opinion. Orfor the taxation of the expenses in question. der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. HOOKER, J., concurs in this dissent.

STEVER, Appellant, v. COOKINGHAM,

Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiIn re SNOOK et al. (Supreme Court, Ap- vision, Third Department. June 30, 1904.) ACpellate Division, Second Department.. June 24, tion by Wallace Stever against George Cook1904.) In the matter of the application of ingham. No opinion. Judgment unanimously John Augustus Snook and others, as executors, affirmed, with costs. etc., for a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to Hon. James C. Church, Surrogate. In re STILES. (Supreme Court, Appellate No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. Division, Third Department. June 30, 1904.);

In the matter of the charges preferred against In re SOUTH SHORE NATURAL GAS & Esmond Stiles, an attorney and counselor at FUEL CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- law. No opinion. Report of the referee convision, Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.) Infirmed, and charges of deceit and malpractice the matter of the application of the South sustained, and said Esmond Stiles removed Shore Natural Gas & Fuel Company to lay and from the office of attorney and counselor at maintain its pipes in, upon, along, and across law. certain highways in the town of Sheridan, N. Y.

PER CURIAM. Order granted; the time STOTT, Respondent, v. DARBEE, Appeland manner of laying the pipes to be designated lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in the order, and the petitioner to give adequate Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by security indemnifying the town of Sheridan Mary Stott against Cleveland Darbee, as exfrom any damages which may result from the ecutor, etc. No opinion. Judgment unanimous-performance of the work, and also security for ly affirmed, with costs. its compliance with its agreement made in pursuance of this order. The form of the order TALBOTT, Respondent, v. SHEAR, Appelto be settled by and before SPRING, J., upon lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, five days' notice.

Third Department. September 20, 1904.) AC

« 이전계속 »