which is not put in issue by a denial.-George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049.

In an action for rent, denial that rent was demanded held not a denial of a material fact. -George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049.

A denial on information and belief of plaintiff's incorporation raises no issue.-George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049. In an action for rent, a general denial of all the allegations of the complaint, including the allegation of nonpayment, is not sufficient to permit proof of payment.-George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049.

A denial of allegations charging nonpayment of rent raises no issue, where the lease is ad mitted by a lack of denial.-George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049.

Denials in an answer raise no issue, unless they deny material allegations of the complaint and put in issue a fact necessary to be proved. -George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049.

4. Demurrer or exception.

On demurrer, conclusions of law are not admitted.-Petty v. Emery (Sup.) 823.

A demurrer to the whole of an answer for insufficiency of facts is properly overruled, where an issue is raised by any of the denials or allegations of the answer.-George A. Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Const. Co. (Sup.) 1049.

defense, prior to the service of an answer.Hicks v. Eggleston (Sup.) 528.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 500, in a suit to restrain payment of a sheriff's bill, alleged to be excessive, defendants held not entitled to a bill of particulars, in order to enable them to answer.-Hicks v. Eggleston (Sup.) 528.

for personal services, plaintiff held not entitled In a suit for compensation under a contract to a bill of particulars as to the details in which defendant alleged failure to perform.— O'Rourke v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co. (Sup.) 926.

In an action for compensation for personal services, defendant held properly required to file a bill of particulars as to the money damage sustained by the negligent conduct of plaintiffs.-O'Rourke v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co. (Sup.) 926.

In an action to recover for plans for a building, plaintiff held entitled to a bill of particulars to defendant's counterclaim.-Price v. Ryan (Sup.) 984.

§ 7. Filing, service, and withdrawal.

The time within which an answer was to be served under Code Civ. Proc. § 520, held a computation to be based on the date of the actual service of summons, and not the date of service as given in an admission of service.-Tolhurst v. Howard (Sup.) 235.

An amended complaint in an action on a fire

ings and repleader.

Conditions imposed on defendant on which he might amend his answer held unduly onerous.Shaw v. O'Meara (Sup.) 152.

In an action by a junior incumbrancer to redeem from a senior mortgage, the court held to have properly permitted plaintiff to amend her complaint to conform to the proof, which was to the effect that the mortgage was fully paid before its assignment, and that the assignee advanced nothing for the purpose of making such payment.-Conlon v. Minor (Sup.) 224.

In an action for breach of contract, the ruling of the court in permitting an amendment of the complaint at the beginning of the trial held proper-Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Co. (Sup.) 835.

In an action on a contract for services rendered and for damages for its breach, plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint at the conclusion of the trial increasing the amount of damages claimed.-Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Co. (Sup.) 835.

6. Bill of particulars and copy of account.

In an action for injuries to a guest of a hotel by the falling of a window, alleged to

lege performance of conditions precedent, held not cured by interlineation of the word "duly" in general allegation permitted by Code Civ. Proc. 533, only in the original amended complaint.-Guarino v. Fireman's Ins. Co. (Sup.) 1044.

§ 8. Motions.

Allegations in a complaint should not be stricken, as irrelevant or redundant, when the portions left, standing alone, would be unintelligible.-Day v. Day (Sup.) 504.

Complaint in an action for personal injuries held to be only for negligence, so that a motion requiring plaintiff to elect on which of two theories he would try his case was properly denied.-Magar v. Hammond (Sup.) 796.

9. Defects and objections, waiver, and aider by verdict or judgment. Where a plaintiff, when returning defendant's answer, did not do so on the ground that it was' entitled in the wrong county, such fact would not justify his refusal to receive it.-Tolhurst v. Howard (Sup.) 235.

POLICE DEPARTMENT.

A bill of particulars cannot be granted, on

POLICY.

88 N.Y.S.-74

QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

In civil actions, see "Trial," § 4.

QUIET ENJOYMENT.

Instructions in action against a railroad company for injuries to person manipulating beam

See "Street Railroads."

As employers, see "Master and Servant." Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Carriers."

Procuring release for damages for interference with easement as constituting railroad a bona fide purchaser, see "Vendor and Purchaser," §§ 3, 4.

§ 1. Location of road, termini, and stations.

A certificate should not be granted a railroad, under Railroad Law, Laws 1892, p. 1395, c. 676, § 59, where the proposed road is principally for freight, and a large majority of those owning property on the line are opposed to it. -People v. State Board of R. Com'rs (Sup.) 522.

An instruction in an action for injuries sustained while in defendant's railroad yards held erroneous, as requiring too high a degree of care from defendant.-Heck v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 154.

Railroad engineer held negligent in failing to stop train in time to avoid striking beam projecting across track, to the injury of person at the other end. Fitzgibbons v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (Sup.) 341.

Negligence of person manipulating beam projecting across railroad track, in assuming position of peril, held not contributory to accident resulting from train's striking beam.-Fitzgibbons v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (Sup.) 341.

Evidence in action against a railroad for injuries to a person manipulating beam project

defendant could complain of.-Fitzgibbons v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (Sup.) 341.

In an action against a railroad for injuries sustained, evidence held insufficient to sustain a finding that the accident occurred at a highv. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Sup.) 561. way crossing, as claimed by plaintiff.-Tereszko

In an action against a railroad for injuries, held, that it was a question for the jury wheth er the accident occurred at a highway crossing, as claimed by plaintiff, or at a private crossing. -Tereszko v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Ca (Sup.) 561.

RATIFICATION.

Of act of agent, see "Principal and Agent," § 2, 3.

REAL-ESTATE AGENTS.

See "Brokers."

REBUTTAL.

Of presumptions of fact, see "Evidence," § 1

RECEIVERS.

Appointment in supplementary proceedings, så "Execution," § 1. Of corporations in general, see "Corporations," § 7.

§ 1. Management and disposition

property.

A provision as to the terms of a receiver's sale held drawn in interest of a particular bidder for the purpose of stifling competition

Strickland v. National Salt Co. (Sup.) 32

Confirmation of a receiver's sale refused, where the order of sale was made without die closing to the court a prior order for the same relief.-Strickland v. National Salt Co. (Sup)

323.

A bid for property at a receiver's sale inadequate.-Strickland v. National Salt Ca (Sup.) 323.

RECOGNIZANCES.

Entry of judgment on order forfeiting, s "Appeal," § 1.

RECORDS.

As evidence, see "Evidence," § 7.
Of judgment, see "Judgment," § 4.
Of leases, see "Landlord and Tenant." § 1.
Transcript on appeal, see "Appeal," § 3.

REMAINDERS.

1.

Requisites and validity.

A release of an interest in an estate set ide for concealment of facts by one who had ed petition for administration.-Toomey v. hitney (Sup.) 216.

Statement in conversation between firm credor and one partner held not to constitute a gal agreement to release partner from liability. Isaac Goldman Co. v. Wilkes (Sup.) 390. Evidence held to sustain a finding that a rease of a claim for damages for personal inries was obtained by fraud.-Fleming v. rooklyn Heights R. Co. (Sup.) 732.

A release on claim for damages for personal juries may be impeached for fraud, on the

REMOVAL.

Of corporate officers, see "Corporations," § 5. Of municipal officers, see "Municipal Corporations," § 1.

Of referee, see "Reference," § 2.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

Change of venue or place of trial, see "Venue," § 2.

REMOVAL OF CLOUD.

See "Quieting Title."

RENEWAL.

Of employment, see "Master and Servant," § 1 Of lease, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 3.

RENT.

See "Landlord and Tenant," § 5.
Counterclaim in action for, see "Set-Off and
Counterclaim," § 1.

REORGANIZATION.

Of corporation, see "Corporations," § 8.

REPAIRS.

of premises demised, see "Landlord and Tenant," §§ 4, 5,

REPLEVIN.

Jurisdiction of municipal courts, see "Courts," § 1. Making false replevin affidavit as contempt, see "Contempt," § 1. Pleading conclusions, see "Pleading," § 1.

1. Right of action and defenses.

In an action for damages for the detention of a bicycle after demand, in which plaintiff claimed that a previous nonsuit was not a bar to the action, a judgment for damages for the de