text:
    National Blouse Corporation, Appellant, v. Alfred Felson et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Alfred Felson, Respondents.
    Argued April 5, 1949;

    decided April 20, 1949.

      Emmet L. Holbrook and Joseph Haskell for appellant.

      Joseph Fennelly, Jr., Clarence E. Horn, Jr., and Martin J. Kelly, Jr., for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Bbomley, JJ.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Helen B. Seaver et al., Appellants, v. New York Produce Exchange et al., Respondents.
    Argued April 6, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      John E. Higgiston, Jr., and Lee McCcmliss for appellants.

      William B. Shealy for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Pearl Kutun et al., Appellants and Respondents, v. Hanna R. Kranz, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Louis Kranz, Deceased, Respondent and Appellant, and Floyd Kranz, Appellant and Respondent.
    Argued April 8, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Kenneth S. MacAffer and Meyer A. Novick for defendant Hanna R. Kranz, respondent and appellant.

      Benjamin M. Goldstein and Nellie Childs Smith for plaintiffs Pearl Kutun and others, appellants and respondents, and defendant Floyd Kranz, appellant and respondent.
   Judgment so far as appealed from affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reed W. Bailey, Appellant.
    Argued April 12, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Albert R. De Young for appellant.

      Milton A. Wiltse, District Attorney (Angus G. Saunders of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Albert Brown, Respondent, v. Manshul Realty Corp., Appellant.
    Submitted April 5, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Samuel E. Swiggett for appellant.

      Herman B. Gerringer, Jacquin Frank and William L. Standard for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Josephine M. Bogle, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.
    Argued April 11, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Louis J. Merrell and Sidney M. Wittner for appellant.

      JohnP. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Joseph J. Lucchi and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We cannot say, as a matter of law, on this record that there is no room for the exercise of discretion. The Appellate .Division having reversed the order of the Special Term and denied the motion upon questions of law, we accordingly reverse the order appealed from and remit the matter to that court for compliance with section 602 of the Civil Practice Act.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted to that court for compliance with section 602 of the Civil Practice Act, without costs.

Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fund and Bromley, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


text:
    Lansing H. Keeler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lansing J. P. Keeler, Deceased, Appellant, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Respondent.
    Argued October 13, 1948;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Reuben L. Hashell for appellant.

      Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., Ralph E. Memstreet and William J. 0 ’Bfien for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond, Fuld and Bromley, JJ. Conway and Dye, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial upon the following grounds: (1) that there was a question of fact presented as to whether the accident was one which should reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant, (2) that there was a question of fact as to whether the covering of the third rail was adequate in view of the fact that plaintiff’s intestate was crossing from a path closely paralleling this dangerous death-dealing instrumentality alongside railroad tracks in which grass and weeds had been permitted to grow, and (3) that it was error to exclude proof of a prior similar accident within 300 feet of the place of the instant accident in which another boy had been injured under similar circumstances.


text:
    Mitchell Kennerley, Jr., et al., on Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated Consumers of Telephone Service Supplied by the New York Telephone Company, Appellants, v. New York Telephone Company, Respondent.
    Argued April 5, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Amos Basel, Henry Kohn and George Frankenthaler for appellants.

      Frank A. Fritz, Arthur G. Patterson, Anthony T. Antinozzi, Carl M. Abromeit and Ralph W. Brown for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loxjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Louis B. Samuels, Appellant, against Milton O. Bailey, as Sheriff of Greene County, Defendant. Augusta Samuels, Respondent.
    Argued April 6, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Samuel Gottlieb and Emanuel Baetich for appellant.

      Charles Rothenberg and Milton Koss for respondent.
   Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion. [See 299 N. Y. 723.]

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    William Rubin, Plaintiff, v. Prudence Bonds Corporation et al., Defendants, and Florindo S. Polo, Respondent. Alexander Rothstein, Appellant.
    Argued April 5, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Alexander Bothstein, appellant in person.

      William M. Kilcullen for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Estate of William Gergely, Deceased. Paul Hollos, as Ancillary Administrator with the Will Annexed of William Gergely, Deceased, Respondent. Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Defendant. Irene Pick, Appellant.
    Submitted April 4, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      William F. Glare, Jr., and A. Turney Savage for motion.

      Otto G. Sommerich and Benjamin Busch opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Herbert Erhardt, Appellant, v. John F. Foster, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Respondent.
    Submitted April 4, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (William S. Elder, of counsel), for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed on the ground that appellant has not surrendered himself into custody and is, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the court. (See People v. Genet, 59 N. Y. 80 ; People ex rel. Hamilton v. Commissioner, 185 N. Y. 594.)


text:
    Bernard H. Stecker, Doing Business as B. H. Stecker Co., Appellant, v. American Home Fire Assurance Co., Respondent.
    Submitted April 11, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.
   Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements. [See 299 N. Y. 1.]


text:
    Simon Beloff et al., Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and all Other Stockholders Similarly Situated and as Stockholders of Brooklyn Edison Company, et al., Appellants, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted April 11, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.

      Jacob H. Goetz and Henry S. Reeder for motion.

      Henry Cohen and Daniel Rhoades opposed.
   Motion denied, without prejudice to the renewal thereof on the argument.


text:
    Revelone, Inc., Appellant, v. Arlind Realty Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted April 19, 1949;
    decided April 20, 1949.
   Motion for an order certifying a constitutional question denied, with $10 costs,


text:
    Nettie M. Feins, Respondent, v. Samuel P. Cohen, Appellant.
    Argued April 12, 1949;
    decided May 19, 1949.

      Julius A. Itskowits for appellant.

      Paxton Blair and Irving. Novis for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold Dupree and Herman Dupree, Appellants.
    Argued April 6, 1949;
    decided May 19, 1949.

      Nicholas Pecora, Caesar B. F. Barra, Morris Dickman and Ralph J. Barra for Harold Dupree, appellant.

      Rudolph Stand, John Car done and Jacob Markowitz for Herman Dupree, appellant.

      Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Whitman Knapp and Charles W. Manning of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgments of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Lucian Lamm, Appellant, against Andrew J. Clauson, Jr., et al., Constituting the Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
    Argued April 11, 1949;
    decided May 19, 1949.

      Donald I. Peyser, Maxwell C. Kate and Otto G. Sommerich for appellant.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Michael A. Castaldi, Seymour B. Quel and Arthur H. Kahn of counsel), for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Dairymen’s League Cooperative Association, Inc., Appellant, against John M. Murtagh, as Commissioner of Investigation of the City of New York, Respondent.
    Argued February 24, 1949;
    decided May 19, 1949.

      Theodore Kiendl, Seward A. Miller and Spencer Byard for appellant.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Charles F. Preusse, W. Bernard Richland, Bernard Friedlamder and Barbara Carroll of counsel), for respondent.

      Laurence Arnold Tamser for Commerce and Industry Association of New York, Inc., amicus curiae, in support of appellant’s position.
   Per Curiam.

We agree with the Appellate Division that in this investigation directed by the Mayor, the commissioner of investigation was authorized to subpoena the records and information herein sought from the appellant (New York City Charter, § 803, subd. 1). We also agree that the information sought by the subpoena duces tecum was relevant tp the inquiry (Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N. Y. 374). We pass upon no other question. The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.


text:
    Eric Calamia, Individually and Trading under the Name of Reinhard Bros., Respondent, v. Goldsmith Bros., Inc., Appellant.
    Argued April 14, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Orrin G. Judd, Louis Glaser, Ruth I. Wilson and Earle K. Moore for appellant.

      Malcolm, L. Fleischer, Leo Greenfield and Herbert M. Markham for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. [See 299 N. Y. 795.]

Concur: Loughban, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Louis Natale, Appellant, against Habbis H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents.
    Argued April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Francis A. McGrath and William G. Mattison for appellant.

      Charles F. Preusse, Acting Corporation Counsel (Stanley Buchsbaum and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Grace E. Connolly, Respondent, v. Rosalie Jones et al., as Sole Surviving Executrices and Trustees under the Will of Mary E. Jones, Deceased, et al., Appellants and Respondents; William H. Green et al., Respondents and Appellants, and T. Everett C. Tuthill et al., Individually and as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Suffolk, et al., Appellants and Respondents.
    Argued April 20, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Eugene A. Sherpick, Richard T. Davis, E. Merritt Weidner and Rosalie G. Jones for Town of Huntington and others, appellants.

      David L. Glickmcm and Edgar F. Hazleton for T. Everett C. Tuthill and others, constituting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Suffolk, and another, appellants.

      Eugene R. Hurley for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs. First and second questions certified answered in the negative; third question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

■ Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    William H. Adams, Appellant, v. White Construction Co., Inc., Respondent.
    Argued April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Robert McGowan Smith for appellant.

      Albert P. Thill and John P. Smith for respondent.
   Judgments. reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the evidence received in support of plaintiff’s case was prima facie proof of defendant’s negligence. No opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Anna Brady, Respondent, against Behr-Manning Corporation et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Argued April 20, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      John J. Conners, Jr., for appellants.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum and Wendell P. Brown of counsel), for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Gulla, Appellant.
    Submitted April 14, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Walter Gulla, appellant in person.

      Benjamin Newberg, District Attorney, for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion. [See 299 N. Y. 793.]

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Sutton Carpet Cleaners, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, Defendant. Ruth C. Wright, Appellant, v. Hyman Levine et al., Defendants, and Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, Respondent.
    Argued April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      J oseph L. Forscher for appellant.

      John A. Fletcher for respondent.
   Order affirmed,- with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye,

Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael Comparetto, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Michael Comparetto, appellant in person.

      Miles F. McDonald, District Attorney (Solomon A. Klein of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed.; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye. Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Jackson Heights Courts, Inc., Appellant, v. 171-24th Street, Jackson Heights, Inc., Respondent.
    Argued April 13, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      William S. Siemon for appellant.

      Edward G. McLaughlin and Thomas W. Geary for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughraw, Ch. J., Lewis, Cowway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Thomas P. Keevan, Appellant, v. Arthur W. Wallander, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.
    Argued April 14, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Sydney Rosenthal for appellant.

      JohnP. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Henry J. Shields and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Sol Atlas, Appellant, against James K. Dick, as Building Inspector of the Village of Great Neck Plaza, et al., Respondents.
    Argued April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Hyman Grill and Henry A. Panoff for appellant.

      John H. Munley and George J. Meade for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Accounting of Irving M. Lachman, as Executor of David Lachman, Deceased, Respondent; Sylvia L. Hyatt, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Robert E. Perm and Joseph E. Greenberg for appellant. Abraham N. Davis and Manfred Nathan for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghran, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    Daniel F. Crowley, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant.
    Argued April 20, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (William E. Walsh, Seymour B. Quel and Frank A. Piazza of counsel), for appellant.

      Richard J. Relyea, 11, for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for the Brooklyn-Queens Connecting Highway and Park Additions (Furman Street) from Hamilton Avenue at Hicks Street to Park Avenue at Navy Street, in the Borough of Brooklyn. Pietro Tomao et al., Appellants.
    Argued April 13, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Frank Berri for appellants.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Bernard H. Friedman, Harry E. O’Donnell and Reuben Levy of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Florence Knapp, Appellant, v. Arthur A. Knapp, Respondent.
    Argued April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Horace S. Manges, Gabriel Kaslow, Jacob F. Raskin and Milton Haselkorn for appellant.

      Joseph Leary Delaney, I. Maurice Wormser, Edward S. Menapace and Lee Feltman for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Gertrude Tice, Appellant, v. Oppenheim Collins & Co., Respondent.
    Argued May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      William J. Sernoffsky and Maurice Yellen for appellant.

      William B. II. Sawyer and Merrill G. Windelberg for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lewis, Desmond, Dye and Bromley, JJ. Loughran, Ch. J., Conway and Fuld, JJ., dissent upon the ground that the issues as to negligence and contributory negligence were proper for submission to the jury.


text:
    Anna Goldblatt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Max Goldblatt, Deceased, Appellant, v. Antonio Tabacco, et al., Defendants, and Corbetta Construction Co., Inc., Respondent.
    Argued May 17, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      David I. Shivitz and Edmund B. Hennefeld for appellant.

      John F. X. Finn and Carmelo J. Pernicone for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Lucina S. Wakefield, as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerald R. Wakefield, Deceased, Respondent, v. Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Appellants.
    Argued April 12, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Morris Weissherg, Seymour B. Quel and Michael A. Castaldi of counsel), for appellants.

      A. Mark Levien for respondent;
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Frank C. Moore, as Comptroller of the State of New York, on Behalf of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent, against Board of Education, Union Free School District No. 1, of the Town and City of Canandaigua, et al., Appellants.
    Argued April 13, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Frederic T. Henry for appellants.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Edward L. Ryan, Wendell P. Brown and Douglas S. Rider of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    Revelone, Inc., Appellant, v. Arlind Realty Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
    Argued May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Emily Marx for appellant.

      John C. O’Malley and Joseph V. McKee for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs. Questions certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Metropolitan Fuel Distributors, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Thorne, Neale and Company, Appellant.
    Submitted April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Joseph F. Murray and James E. Kelliher for appellant.

      J. Irwin Shapiro, Leo Kotler and Samuel L. Brennglass for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Coeway, Desmoed, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Dewey Savarese and Anthony Forte, Appellants, against John F. Foster, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Respondent.
    Submitted April 4, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
    Cross motion by appellants for order denying respondent’s motion to dismiss appeal.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (William S. Elder, Jr., of counsel), for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to cross motion.

      Dewey Savarese and Anthony Forte, in person, for cross motion and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal.
   Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed. Cross motion denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Carmine Pizza, Appellant, against John A. Lyons, as New York State Commissioner of Correction, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 19, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Carmine Pissa, in person, for motion.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (William S. Elder, Jr., Wendell P. Brown and Herman N. Harcourt of counsel), opposed.
   Motion for leave to appeal and for leave to submit appeal upon the original record and typewritten briefs denied. Appeal dismissed.


text:
    In the Matter of the Estate of John M. Balsam, Deceased. Clarice Dixson, Formerly Balsam, Appellant; Dorothea F. Balsam, as Administratrix of the Estate of John M. Balsam, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Henry Vollmer, Jr., George G. Wildermuth and John G. Osborne for motion.

      Edward J. Egan and Lester Feuerstein opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of John L. Reid, Deceased. Robert Garrow, Appellant; Margaret M. Euller et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
   Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements. [See 298 N. Y. 878.]


text:
    Federal Motorship Corporation, Respondent, v. Johnson & Higgins, Respondent; United States of Mexico, Appearing Specially, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Monroe Collenburg, Frank Rashap and Irving I. Goldsmith for motion.

      Cletus Keating, Louis J. Gusmano, Donald Havens and Thomas K. Roche opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Philip Brown et al., Respondents, v. Bendix Aviation Corporation, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Wright Tisdall for motion.

      Jack Gross and Alex J. Glaubermann opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Lake, alias Joseph Turner, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Frank S. Kogan, District Attorney (Whitman Knapp of counsel), for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed.


text:
    245 East 37th Street, Inc., Respondent, v. Fireman’s Fund Indemnity Company, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Robert E. Curran for motion.

      Allen Moss opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the order was made in a proceeding originally commenced in a court other than the Supreme Court, a County Court, a Surrogate’s Court or the Court of Claims (Civ. Prac. Act, § 589, subd. 1, cl. [b]).


text:
    Savo, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Palm Island Latin Quarter, Inc., Respondent.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Robert Halpern for motion.

      William Gold opposed.
   • Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Lew Morris, Appellant, v. Gustav A. Mezger, Respondent.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Henry Cohen and George J. Rudnick for motion.

      Alfred S. Julien, Jerome K. Soffer and Nathan Grossgold opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, without prejudice to a renewal thereof if and when a judgment has been entered on the order of the Appellate Division.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Florence Horn, Respondent, against Pals & Solow et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
   Motion for reargument denied. Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended by striking out the words “ without costs ” and substituting therefor the words “ with one bill of costs to the appellants in this court against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.” [See 299 N. Y. 575.]


text:
    In the Matter of the Accounting of Walter G. Zimmer, as Executor of Henry J. Zimmer, Deceased, Respondent. Hilda B. Moloney, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      J. Frank Traynor for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion, unless, within ten days from the date of service upon the attorney for the appellant of a copy of the order made upon this motion, together with notice of entry thereof, the appellant files and serves the undertaking on appeal and pays $10 costs, in which event motion denied.


text:
    In the Matter of the Arbitration between Active Fabrics Corporation, Appellant, and Rosedale Fabrics, Incorporated, Respondent.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Sydney Hut and Maurice Damson for motion.

      Isidor Enselman and Paul Abrams opposed.
   Motion denied, without costs on the ground that an appeal lies as of right (Civ. Prac. Act, § 588, subd. 1, cl. [c]).


text:
    Harris Osgood, as Committee of the Person and Property of Arethusa Osgood, an Incompetent Person, v. D. W. Winkelman Company, Inc., Appellant. Eastern Rock Products, Inc., Respondents and Appellants, and Warren Froelick, Respondent. Joe Schapiro, as Executor of Jay Brennan, Deceased, Appellants and Respondents, v. D. W. Winkelman Company, Inc., et al., Respondents and Appellants, and Warren Froelick, Respondent.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Oscar J. Brown for motion.

      Howard J. Zeller opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements unless, within fifteen days, all papers required by rule 21 (subd. [b]) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals are filed.


text:
    William Dobbs, Respondent, v. Dennis King, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Robert Lee Henry and Walter Pick for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of the Application of Rosemary Cross, Appellant. Ilse Kiliani, Respondent.
    Argued May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      J. Robert Bleakley for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to motion for order amending notice of appeal.

      Arthur G. Warren for motion for order amending notice of appeal and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal.
   Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

Motion for order amending notice of. appeal denied.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric Hass, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended to state that, upon the argument of this appeal, the defendant contended that section 21 of article III of the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Parks of the City of New York violated the defendant’s rights of freedom of speech and of assembly without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In affirming the conviction this court held that said section did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. [See 299 N. Y. 190.]


text:
    Abel Gottheimer et al., Respondents, v. Walter Reade, Sr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Solomon Goodman and John J. Cutroneo for motion.

      Samuel R. Gerstein opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, unless, within fifteen days, all papers required by rule 21 (subd. [b]) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals are filed.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William J. Dessaure, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
   Motion for reargument denied. [See 299 N. Y. 126.]


text:
    Condur Affiliates, Inc., Respondent, v. Ronnie, Inc., Appellant.
    Submitted May 23, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Joseph L. Greenberg for motion.

      Alvin I. Perlmutter opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, upon the ground that the order does not finally determine any action or special proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Murry, Appellant.
    Submitted May 23, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.

      Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Whitman Knapp of counsel), for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed.


text:
    Hollywood Plays, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Columbia Pictures Corporation, Appellant.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
   Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements. [See 299 N. Y. 61.]


text:
    Frank Filardo, Appellant, v. Foley Bros., Inc., et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 26, 1949.
   Motion for reargument denied. Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended to provide that the judgment of the Appellate Division be reversed and the complaint dismissed, without costs. [See 297 N. Y. 217.]


text:
    Lottie Partner et al., Respondents, v. Howard S. Palmer et al., as Trustees of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 16, 1949;
    decided May 25, 1949.

      William D. Van Pelt for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements upon the ground that an appeal lies as of right.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lloyd George Inman, Appellant.
    Argued April 7, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Burroughs A. Strickland and Harry Cooper for appellant.

      J. Kenneth Serve, District Attorney, for respondent.
   Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughrah, Ch. J., Lewis, Cohway, Desmohd, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Cora T. Walker, an Attorney, Respondent. William T. Powers, Appellant.
    Argued May 17, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Abe Wagman and Wendell P. Brown of counsel), for appellant.

      Ethel Shames, Leandre V. Roberts and Andrew D. Weinberger for respondent.
   Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Gerald E. Walcott, Appellant, v. W. Roy Fisher et al., Constituting the Madrid Central School Board, District No. 1 of the Town of Madrid, St. Lawrence County; Respondents.
    Argued May 17, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Richard G. Algie and Frank L. Cubley for appellant.

      William Crapser for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughean, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Federated Cab Sales Corp., Appellant, against Lazarus Joseph, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
    Argued May 18, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      G. Barron Mallory and Richard P. Jackson for appellant.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Bernard E. Sherris, Isaac C. Donner and Alvin E. Kaufer of counsel), for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Morris S. Greenbaum, Respondent, v. Baywood Homes, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Argued May 19, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Isadore Nathanson, Alexander Boskoff and George A. Roland for appellant.

      Charles Wilson and Charles Snow for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fttld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. National White Plains Corp., Appellant.
    Argued May 18, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Samuel Ruhin for appellant.

      George Fanelli, District Attorney, William R. Condit, Corporation Counsel (Vincent Del Tufo of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Grandview Dairy, Inc., Appellant, against C. Chester Du Mond, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Respondent.
    Argued May 19, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Herbert L. Maltinsky, Harry L. Marcus and Michael F. Demlis for appellant.

      Robert G..Blabey and Donald L. Brush for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Accounting of Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee, Respondent. Kenneth J. Mullane, as Special Guardian and Attorney for Infants and Others, Appearing Specially, Appellant; James N. Vaughan, as Special Guardian and Attorney for Infants and Others, Respondent.
    Argued May 17, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Kenneth J. Mullane, as special guardian for infants and others having interest in income of trust fund, appellant.

      Albert B. Maginnes and J. Quincy Hunsicker, 3d, for Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, respondent trustee.

      James N. Vaughan, as special guardian for infants and others having interest in principal of trust fund, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs to the respondents and printing disbursements to the appellant, payable out of the fund. First and second questions certified answered in the affirmátive; third question certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Leonard Little, Respondent, v. John C. Young, as Chief Building Inspector of the Town of Hempstead, Appellant.
    Argued May 18, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      George R. Brennan and Palmer D. Farrington for appellant.

      Ferdinand I. Haber for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Salvatore Tosto, Appellant, v. Marra Bros., Inc., Respondent.
    Argued May 18, 1949;
    decided June 2, 1949.

      Abraham Botwein, Bichard M. Cantor and Israel L. Qlasser for appellant.

      Joseph J. Brophy, Desmond T. Barry and Edward A. Shanddl for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of The Newspaper P. M., Inc., et al., Appellants; Edward Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, Respondent.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Samuel J. Silverman and Samuel W. Weiss for appellants.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Francis B. Curran and Wendell P. Brown of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Kathryne Shannon, Appellant, v. Margaret V. Bergener, Respondent.
    Argued May 20, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Arthur E. Ellis for appellant.

      John A. Wallace and John E. Tobin for respondent.
   Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the issues as to negligence and contributory negligence were proper for submission to the jury. No opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Beomley, JJ.


text:
    Thomas Carroll, Respondent, v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      John E. Morrissey for appellant.

      Nathan Hendon and Harry E. Kreindler for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fund and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Chester B. Smith, Respondent.
    Argued May 25, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Lindsay R. Henry, District Attorney (Harry G. Brenner of counsel), for appellant.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Irving I. Waocman and Wendell P. Brown of counsel), for appellant and as amicus curice.

      Jules B. St. Germain for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Estate of Murry Miller, Deceased. Samuel Miller, Appellant; Amalia M. Miller, Respondent.
    Argued April 13, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Louis Stone for appellant.

      Joseph F. Kosman and Harry Geist for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loitghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Wincenta Leszczynski et al., as Administratrices of the Estate of Kazimer Leszczynski, Deceased, Respondents, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.
    Argued May 24, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Paxton Blair for appellant.

      Mary Cooper and Charles K. Finch for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee for Helen M. Wiegers and Others under the Deeds of Trust Made by Bernarr Macfadden, Respondent, v. Mary Macfadden, Appellant, and Bernarr Macfadden et al., Respondents.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Maurice V. Seligson and Lewis F. Glaser for appellant.

      Edward G. McLean and Frederick O. McKenzie for Bernarr Macfadden, respondent.

      Alfred Bathheim, guardian ad litem for Philip Herbert and others, respondent in person.
   Judgments affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Dorothy S. Triebel, as Executrix of W. Franklin Triebel, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.
    (Claim No. 28408.)
    Argued May 24, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      William M. Montgomery and Joseph Jiudice for appellant.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Wortley B. Paul and Wendell P. Brown of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Richard Appier, Respondent, v. Gertrude T. Million et al., a Partnership Doing Business under the Name of Thornton Company, et al., Appellants.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Charles S. Wilcox and Frank L. D’Arcy for appellants.

      Charles J. Engel for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjqhban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Margaret V. Bailey et al., Appellants, v. Isidore Lipshutz et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Lipshutz & Gutwirth, Respondents.
    Argued May 24, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Joseph JET. Sand, Samuel L. Sargent and Bernard Meyerson for appellants.

      John W. Trapp for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Finn and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Long Park, Inc., Suing for Itself and All Other Stockholders of Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Company, Similarly Situated, Respondent, v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Harry Rodwin, Monroe Goldwater and Bernard Katz for appellants.

      Solomon Goodman and John J. Cutroneo for respondent.
   That portion of the order which affirms the order of Special Term granting the reference, affirmed, with costs. First question certified answered in the affirmative. The appeal from the remaining portion of the order which affirms the order of Special Term denying resettlement of the order of reference, dismissed. In the absence of any statement in the order of the Appellate Division that its decision was based solely on questions of law and not in the exercise of discretion, we are required to presume that the contrary was the fact (Civ. Prac. Act, § 603). The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the second question of law certified is not decisive of the correctness of so much of the order appealed from as relates to the denial of the resettlement. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 589, subd. 3, par. [b]; see Mencher v. Chesley, 297 N. Y. 94, 102; Evadan Realty Corp. v. Patterson, 297 N. Y. 732, 734; Langan v. First Trust & Deposit Co., 296 N. Y. 60, 61.) No opinion.

Concur: Lottghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, ■ Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    New York Towers, Inc., Respondent, v. Lillian Sloane, Inc., Appellant.
    Argued May 24, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Arnold J. Brock and William P. Balaban for appellant.

      Henry N. Bapaport and Stanley Kanarek for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Parkhattan Corporation, Appellant, v. Charles G. Coster et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.
    Argued May 26, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Emamiel Harris and Max E. Greenberg for appellant.

      George F. Mullay, Nathan W. Math and Joseph Jay for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Louis B. Samuels, Appellant, against Milton O. Bailey, as Sheriff of Greene County, Defendant. Augusta Samuels, Respondent.
    Submitted May 23, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur denied. [See 299 N. Y. 624.]


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Joshua Shedden, Respondent, against Howard R. Ware Corp., Employer-Respondent, and Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, Ltd., Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Submitted May 31, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Edward J. Haniver and William L. Schumate for motion.

      Arthur H. Goldberg opposed.
   Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, unless within fifteen days all papers required by rule 21 (subd. [b]) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals are filed.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Herman Barmore, Appellant, v. John F. Foster, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 31, 1949;
    decided June 3, 1949.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (William S. Elder of counsel), for motion.

      Herman Barmore in person, opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed.


text:
    In the Matter of the Arbitration between Lionel Lane, as President of Endicott Leather Workers’ Union, Local 285, International Fur and Leather Workers’ Union of the United States and Canada, C.I.O., Respondent, and Endicott Johnson Corporation, Appellant.
    Argued May 18, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Benjamin Seligman for appellant.

      Ralph Shapiro for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Accounting of Bertha L. de Varona, as Successor Trustee under a Deed, of Trust Entered into Between Ignatius M. de Varona, Ago., as Settlor, and Amy B. de Varona, as Trustee. Bertha L. de Varona, Individually and as Successor Trustee, et al., Appellants. Josephine L. de V. Williams et al., Respondents.
    Argued May 24, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      John F. X. Finn, John A. Anderson and Carmelo J. Pernicone for appellants.

      Ambrose V. McCall, Eugene L. Gar eg and Frank X. Gronan for Josephine L. de Y. Williams, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the fund; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of New York County Lawyers’ Association, Respondent. Bernard Bercu, Appellant.
    Argued May 25, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Mathias F. Correa and John H. Ciarle, III, for appellant.

      Spencer Gordon for American Institute of Accountants, amicus curies, in support of appellant’s position.

      Edwin M. Otterbourg, George B. Adams, Frederic P. Houston and Abraham N. Davis for respondent.

      Julius Henry Cohen, Neil G. Harrison, Otis T. Bradley, Weston Vernon, Jr., and J. Sterling Halstead for New York State Bar Association, amicus curies, in support of respondent’s position.

      William S. Gaud, Jr., for Association of the Bar of the City of New York, amicus curies, in support of respondent’s position.

      John D. Bandall and Thomas J. Boodell for American Bar Association, amicus curies, in support of respondent’s position.
   Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fund and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Celia Ursaner, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Respondent.
    Argued May 26, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Albert A. Du Pont, Stephen J. Masse and Abraham Gruber for appellant.

      David B. Crow for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Field and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William McKinley Jackson and Floyd Arrington, Appellants.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Abraham J. Gellinoff, John A. Cuneo and Millard E. Theodore for William McKinley Jackson, appellant.

      Harrison S. Jackson, Robert V. Santangelo and Daniel S. Weiss for Floyd Arrington, appellant.

      Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Whitman Knapp and Charles W. Manning of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgments of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Gorman’s Restaurant, Inc., Appellant, against John F. O’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority et al., Respondents.
    Argued June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Abraham J. Gellinoff and Arnold H. Fassler for appellant.

      Alvin McKinley Sylvester and Jack Bernstein for State Liquor Authority, respondents.
   Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Pearl Richer, Respondent, against Globe Forge & Foundries, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Argued June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Lewis C. Ryan for appellants.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Daniel Polansky, Wendell P. Brown and Roy Wiedersum of counsel), for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The finding that the employee was in the course of Ms employment at the time of the fatal accident is not without warrant in the record. The claimant, however, is not entitled to an award, for her divorce from Snyder was void (Caldwell v. Caldwell, 298 N. Y. 146) and hence she is not the widow of the deceased employee.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs to the appellants in tMs court and in the Appellate Division against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bbomley, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


text:
    In the Matter of Lakeside Packing Co., Respondent. Arthur Harris, Appellant.
    Argued May 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Morris Fish for appellant.

      Alexander P. Blanch for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Babcock, Appellant.
    Argued May 24, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Thomas J. De Laney for appellant.

      Gordon Steele, District Attorney (Leonard Finkelstein of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Donald Hirst et al., Defendants, and Nassau Lane Realty Corporation, Appellant.
    Submitted May 25, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Norman A. Howard for appellant.

      Vincent Keane and Louis W. Dawson for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotighran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye. Fttld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clarence Horwitz, as Trustee under a Declaration of Trust Dated April 27, 1938, Appellant, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.
    Argued May 26, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Leon Leighton for appellant.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Edith I. Spivack, William F. Murphy and Morris Handel of counsel), for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghban, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Field and Bbomley, ,TJ.'


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leo Coniglio, Appellant.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      William A. Kelly for appellant.

      James N. Gehrig, District Attorney (Philip Huntington of counsel), for respondents.
   Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Davis, Appellant.
    Argued June 1, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Harry G. Anderson, Harry CMert and George I. Sivetlow for appellant.

      Miles F. McDonald, District Attorney (Solomon A. Klein of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fitld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Biagio Battaglia, Respondent, against Ferdinand Q. Morton et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Appellants.
    Submitted June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Robert É. Pugh and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for appellants.

      George Langberg for respondent.
   Orders affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye ' and Fuld, JJ. Taking no part: Bromley, J.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Anna Westbrook, Respondent, against Southside Sportsmen’s Club of Long Island et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Argued June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Urban 8, Mulvehill for appellants.

      Nathaniel L, Goldstein, Attorney-General (Darnel Polonsky, Wendell P. Brown and Boy Wiedersum of counsel), for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    Irving H. Saypol et al., Copartners Practicing Law under the Firm Name of Saypol & Kotler, et al., Respondents, v. Helen E. McLaughlin et al., Appellants.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Rodger Whelan, Chester B. McLaughlin and Lester D. Stickles for appellant.

      Samuel Lawrence Brennglass, Leo Kotler and Adele K. Saypol for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Application of Kensico Cemetery, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent.
    Argued May 26, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      William F. Bleakley, Henry R. Barrett, Jr., and James D. Hopkins for appellant.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Abe Wagman, Wendell P. Brown, Theodore D. Ostrow and Jerome O. Glucksman of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loijghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Lincoln, Inc., Appellant, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.
    Argued May 27, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Abraham N. Celler and Irving Sonnenschein for appellant.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (Anthony Curreri, William F. Murphy and Morris Handel of counsel), for respondents.
   Order of- Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, upon the ground that the weight of the evidence supports the findings of the Special Term. No opinion.

Concur: Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Ftjld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gabriel Mennillo, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Garofalo, Appellant.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Isaac Rubin, Milton D. Jacobs and Albert M. Armunziata for appellants.

      George M. Fanelli, District .Attorney (John J. O’Brien of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgments affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J.,- Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Eliza Ranney, Deceased. Albert O. Gersley et al., Appellants; Lily E. Snider, Respondent.
    Argued June 1, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Hyman G. Gould and Benjamin E. Solin for Albert O. Gersley and others, contestants-appellants.

      Edward M. Ogden, special guardian for Arthur W. Luitweiler and others, contestants-appellants.

      William MacFarlane for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs to the respondent, payable oüt of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Julius Ruby, Respondent, against Joseph Lustig et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Submitted June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Urban S, Mulvehill for appellants.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Darnel Polanshy, Wendell P. Brown and Boy Wiedersum of counsel), for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent. . .
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye. Fued and Bromeey, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. William Rutkowski, Appellant.
    Argued May 25, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Wilbur J. Turner for appellant.

      Gordon Steele, District Attorney (Leonard Finkelstein of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lotjghkan, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    Rose Goldstein et al., Appellants, v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc., et al., Respondents.
    Argued May 27, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Maurice Pixel, Frederick E. M. Ballon and Ruben Schwarts for appellants.

      S. Sawyer Le Vay for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of a Plan for the Readjustment of the Rights of the Holders of Mortgage Investments Guaranteed by New York Title and Mortgage Company. In the Matter of the Application of BX Corporation, Respondent. Robert E. Dineen, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of New York Title and Mortgage Company, Appellant; Edna M. Williamson, Respondent.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      J. Francis Lynch, Gertrude D. H. Perlman and Julius B. Bucher for appellant.

      Edwin A. Falk and George Etkin for BX Corporation, respondent.

      Robert F. Little for Edna M. Williamson, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Samuel Axelrod et al, Respondents, v. 11 West 42nd Street, Inc., Appellant.
    Argued June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Orrin G. Judd, Saul A. Shames, Sidney B. Moshovits and Abraham J. Halprin for appellant.

      Edward Lasanshy, Benjamin Jaffe and Horace F. Callaghan for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghrax, Ch. J., Lewis, Coxway, Desmoxd, Dye. Ftjld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of the Probate of the Codicil to the Will of Fred Seymour, Deceased. Margaret K. Helmuth et al., Appellants. Phelan Beale et al., as Executors Named in the Will of Fred Seymour, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
    Argued May 25, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Wilhie Bushby, Philip C. Scott and Robert S. Grobcm for appellants.

      Prving G. Rutter for Ruth Gordon-Duff, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs to respondents payable out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ. Lewis J., dissents and votes to reverse the order of the Appellate Division and to affirm the Surrogate’s decree.


text:
    In the Matter of Furman Avenue Realty Corporation, Appellant, against Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York et al., Respondents, and John J. Dwyer et al., Interveners, Respondents.
    Argued May 26, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Francis A. McGrath and William G. Mattison for appellant.

      Charles F. Preusse, Acting Corporation Counsel (Joseph J. Lucchi and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, respondent.

      Reginald S. Hardy for John J. Dwyer and others, interveners, respondents.
   Order affirmed, with one bill of costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, 1)ye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Miriam B. Rosenfield, Appellant and Respondent, v. Edward M. Rosenfield, Respondent and Appellant.
    Argued May 27, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Samuel Gottlieb and Walter P. Aremoald for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

      Mitchell Salem Fisher, Mendel Zucker and Sol Deutsch for defendant, respondent and appellant.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lough rax, Ch. J., Lewis, Con wat, Desmond, Dye, Euld and Bromley, J J.


text:
    Schenectady Mason Supply Corporation, Respondent, v. Joe Salmon, Appellant.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Jacob M. Franhel for appellant.

      Harold A. Gordon and Harold E. Blodgett for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lougiiran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld .and Bbomley, JJ.


text:
    Homix Products, Inc., Appellant, v. Henry Pape, Inc., Respondent.
    Argued June 1, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Donald Marks, Arthur M. Bullowa and Jane M. Murphy for appellant.

      Joseph Leary Delaney, Edwin A. Tennant, Jr., Lee Feltman and Harold A. Meriam, Jr., for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye. Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lloyd Gill, Appellant.
    Argued June 2, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      John, J. Scully and Thomas A. McDermott for appellant.

      Anthony Miceli, District Attorney (Clarence J. Henry of counsel), for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    In the Matter of Motor Club of America, Appellant, against Thomas J. Curran, as Secretary of State of the State of New York, Respondent.
    Argued May 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Ilo Orleans for appellant.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Irving I. Waxman and Wendell P. Brown of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughrax, Ch. J., Lewis, Coxway, Desmoxd, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Charles E. Hallenbeck, as Guardian ad Litem of Charles E. R. Hallenbeck, an Infant, Appellant, v. Lone Star Cement Corporation, Respondent.
    Argued May 25, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      F. Walter Bliss, Warner M. Bouck, Robert II. Ecker and William E. J. Covmor for appellant.

      R. Monell Rersberg, R. Waldron Rersberg and Charles Pickett for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughrax, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Lottie Partner et al. Respondents, v. Howard S. Palmer et al., as Trustees of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, et al., Appellants.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      William D. Van Pelt for Isidor Hershon, appellant.

      Robert M. Peet and Edtoard R. Brumley for Howard S. Palmer and others, appellants.

      Abraham B. Fuss and Benjamin H. Siff for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, and Fuld, JJ. Bromley, J., concurs for affirmance as to Hershon, but dissents and votes to reverse as to Palmer et al., trustees.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of John Alino, Respondent, against French Bottling Works, Inc., Appellant, and State Insurance Fund, Insurance Carrier. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Argued June 3, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Hyman B. 8 chut ser and David Karp for appellant.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Gilbert M. Dandy, Wendell P. Brown and Boy Wiedersum of counsel), for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Jerry Vogel Music Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Miller Music, Inc., Appellant.
    Argued May 23, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Julian T. Abeles, Arnold J. Bernstein and Benjamin G. Weil for appellant.

      Milton M. Bosenbloom, Arthur F. Driscoll and William S. Roach for respondent.

      John Schulman and William Klein, II, for Songwriters Protective Association, amicus curies, in support of respondent’s position.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julio Ramirez Perez, Appellant.
    Argued May 31, 1949;
    reargument ordered July 19, 1949.

      Rose Rothenberg, James D. C. Murray, Abraham J. Gellinoff and Joseph J. Cella for appellant.

      Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Whitman Knapp and Peyton H. Moss of counsel), for respondent.
   Reargument ordered and case set down for reargument during the October, 1949, session.


text:
    McMullen Leavens Co., Incorporated, Appellant, v. L. I. Van Buskirk Co., Defendant, and Mill Factors Corporation, Respondent.
    Argued June 1, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      George F. Reid for appellant.

      Samuel Weinberg, Jacob M. Dinnes and Harold H. Cutler for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order of Appellate Division insofar as it affirms the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff affirmed. Question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ.


text:
    Fred H. Paul et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of F. H. Paul & Stein Bros., Respondents, v. Instituto Argentino de Promocion del Intercambio, Appellant.
    Argued May 27, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Milton Schilback, Joseph M. Godman and J. Jacques Stone for appellant.

      Bernard Aacler for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

We hold that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of notice imposed upon them by Argentine law (Code of Commerce, art. 473). It is unnecessary, therefore, to determine whether enforcement of article 472 of the Argentine Code would be repugnant to the public policy of this State (see Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 224 N. Y. 99, 111). The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Lottghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent, against Sam Rosenshein et al., as Assessors of the Town of Fallsburgh, Sullivan County, et al., Appellants.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Elbert N. Oakes for motion.

      Lazarus I. Levine opposed.
   Motion to amend the record on appeal denied and motion to dismiss the appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.


text:
    In the Matter of Thomas R. Kearney, Appellant, v. Frank C. Moore, as New York State Comptroller, Respondent.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Kent H. Brown of counsel), for motion.

      Thomas R. Kearney, in person, opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is involved.


text:
    In the Matter of the Town of Mamaroneck, Respondent. Lillian E. Ravenscroft, Appellant.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      John L. Delius for motion.

      Lillian E. Bavenseroft, in person, opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.


text:
    Banque Mellie Iran, Appellant and Respondent, v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., et al., Defendants, and Elliott V. Bell, Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., Respondent and Appellant.
    Submitted May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: A federal question was. presented and necessarily passed upon by this court, viz: it was held that the provisions of Executive order No. 8389, as amended, and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto did not prevent the accrual or creation of the claim sued upon or render such claim void, but merely prevented the payment of the claim until an appropriate federal license is obtained, and that the documents in evidence do not constitute such a license.” [See 299 N. Y. 139.]


text:
    Eugene T. Singer, Appellant and Respondent, v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., Defendant, and Elliott V. Bell, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., Respondent and Appellant.
    Submitted May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.
   Motion by defendant Superintendent of Banks and cross motion by plaintiff to amend remittitur granted to the extent indicated, and, in other respects, denied. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: The Supreme Court is directed to enter a judgment adjudging that plaintiff recover of the defendant Elliott V. Bell, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, as liquidator of the business and property in the State of New York of Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., the sum of $557,561.25, without interest, which sum shall constitute a preferred claim payable out of the assets of the Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., in the possession of the defendant, Elliott V. Bell, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, as liquidator of the business and property in the State of New York of Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., the payment of which, however, is subject to the provisions of Executive Order No. 8389, as amended, and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. A Federal question was presented and necessarily passed upon by this court, viz.: it was held that the provisions of Executive Order No. 8389, as amended, and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto did not prevent the accrual or creation of the claim sued upon or render such claim void, but merely prevented the payment of the claim until an appropriate Federal license is obtained, and that the documents in evidence do not constitute such a license. [See 299 N. Y. 113.]


text:
    Joseph Baillargeon, Respondent, v. Eugene C. Jacques, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      F. Walter Bliss, Warner M. Bouck and Harold L. Soden, for motion.

      Clyde A. Lewis, opposed.
   Motion denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    In the Matter of the Accounting of Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as Trustee under the Will of Annie M. Cummings, Deceased, Respondent. Lillian Cummings, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of George S. Cummings, Deceased, et al., Appellants; Edith A. Merritt, Respondent.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur denied, with $10 costs. [See 298 N. Y. 665.]


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Gulla, Appellant.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur denied. [See 299 N. Y. 644.]


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Frank Blumke, Appellant, against John F. Foster, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Respondent.
    Submitted May 31, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (William S. Elder, Jr., of counsel), for motion.

      Franh Blumlce, in person, opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is involved.


text:
    Federal Motorship Corporation, Respondent, v. Johnson & Higgins, Respondent and Appellant. United States of Mexico, Appearing Specially, Appellant.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Donald Havens for motion.
    No one opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., Appellant, against C. Chester Du Mond, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Respondent.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur granted to the extent that the return of the remittitur to this court is requested, and motion for reargument granted. Case set down for reargument during the October, 1949, session. [See 297 N. Y. 209.]


text:
    Walter N. Smith et al., Appellants, v. William O’Dwyer, Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Constituting the New York City Transit Commission, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel (W. Bernard Richland of counsel), for motion.

      Walter N. Smith, in person, opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.


text:
    Eric Calamia, Individually and Trading under the Name of Reinhard Bros., Respondent, v. Goldsmith Bros., Inc., Appellant.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.
   Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: “The following question under the Constitution and laws of the United States was presented and necessarily passed upon: ‘ Whether Article 24-A of the General Business Law is inconsistent with the Miller-Tydings Amendment to the Sherman Act (U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 1) if construed to permit suits by non-signatories and against non-signatories of “ fair trade ” contracts relating to commodities in interstate commerce ’. This Court held such construction of Article 24-A of the General Business Law of New York to be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” [See 299 N. Y. 636.]


text:
    In the Matter of Margo A. Buckley, Appellant, against Walter Fasbender, et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, Respondents.
    Submitted July 19, 1949;
    decided July 19, 1949.

      Richard T. Davis for motion.

      William E. Buckley opposed.
   Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion on the ground that no substantial constitutional question is involved.


author: Strong, J.

text:
    DUDLEY vs. Mayhew.
    The courts of this staté have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit instituted to restrain the infringement of a patent right.
    Nor will jurisdiction be entertained, although the defendant stipulate in the cause not to raise the objection. Consent can not confer such jurisdiction. Under the constitution and laws of the United States, the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction in cases of infringement of patent rights.
    At common law and independent of the act of congress, authors and inventors acquire no exclusive right to the benefit of their writings and discoveries.
    Where a statute confers a right and prescribes adequate means of protecting it, the proprietor of the right is confined to the statutory remedy. Per Strong, J. But where the statute creating the right omits to provide against its infringement the remedy may be pursued at large by any appropriate action or proceeding.
    Appeal from the supreme court. In December, 1837, letters patent were issued by the government of the United States to Jonathan G. Hathaway, for “ a new and improved mode of applying heat to cooking stoves.” In March, 1840, the complainant Dudley, through several intermediate assignments, became the owner of the patent for the county of Erie, in the state of New-York, and in 1842 he filed the bill in this cause before the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, against the defendant Mayhew, for the purpose of restraining him from manufacturing and selling the stove which was the subject of the patent in the said county of Erie. A preliminary injunction was granted by the vice chancellor which the defendant moved to dissolve. The motion was denied, and on appeal to the chancellor, the decision of the vice chancellor was affirmed.
    The defendant pleaded to the bill of complaint that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but after being set down for argument, the plea was withdrawn, the defendant stipulating not to raise the question of jurisdiction in the cause. He then answered the bill. The complainant replied and proofs were taken. The vice chancellor having heard the cause on pleadings and .proofs, sustained the bill and decreed a perpetual injunction. The defendant appealed to the chancellor, and pending the appeal, the cause became vested in the supreme court organized under the new constitution; and that court, sitting in the eighth district, reversed the decree of the vice chancellor and dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed to this court. On the argument in this court as well as in the courts below, the jurisdictional question, among others, was raised, notwithstanding the stipulation.

      S. G. Havens, for appellant,
    cited Const. U. S. art. 3, §§1,2; Judiciary Act of 1789, §§ 9, 11,13, 25 ; Delafield v. The State of Indiana, (2 Hill, 159 ;) 3 Story on the Const. 624; 17 John. 5 ; 2 Kent’s Com. 367, 368; Gibson v. Woodworth, (8 Paige, 132;) Burrall v. Jewett, (2 id. 134;) Clark v. Smith, (13 Peters, 203;) 9 Law Rep. 493; Osborne v. Bank of The United States, (9 Wheat. 738;) Livingston v. Van Ingen, (1 Paine’s C. C. Rep. 45;) 3 Story on the Const. 1147, and cases cited; 1 Chit. Plead. 159, Springfield ed.; 2 id. 764, and cases cited; Phillips on Patents, 382 ; 9 John. 507, and cases cited ; Borden v. Crocker, (10 Pick. 383 ;) Beckford v. Hood, (7 T. R. 620;) King v. Harris, (4 id. 205;) Castle’s case, (Cro. Jac. 644.)

      J. L. Talcott, for respondent.
    I. The bill in this case was filed for the sole purpose of establishing the validity of a patent, and to restrain the infringement of the same. The jurisdiction to do this is, by the constitution, vested exclusively in the federal courts, and the court of chancery of the state of New-York had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
    The power to restrain the defendant from making and vending the stove in question does not exist in the court of chancery, independently of the constitution and laws of the United States; and no power of jurisdiction can be conferred upon the state courts by congress under the constitution. (Constitution U. S. Art. 3, §§ 1, 2; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 334, 5, 7; 3 Story on the Constitution, §§ 1748, 1749; Mannhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binney, 138; U. S. v. Lathrop, 17 John. 4; 1 Kent’s Com. 1st ed. 372 ; 3 McLean, 186 ; Curtis on Patents, p. 452, § 406 ; Phillips on Patents, 378.)
    II. And if congress has the power to confer upon the state courts jurisdiction to enforce the patent laws, yet it has not done so; but on the contrary, has vested the jurisdiction exclusively in the federal courts, by necessary implication. (Patent Law of 1836, § 17; 5 Peters’ Laws U. S. 124; Almy v. Harris, 5 John. 175; 5 Cowen, 165; Aldrich v. Hawkins, 6 Blackf. 125; Lang v. Scott, 1 id. 405; Parsons v. Barnard, 7 John. 144, and see Patent Law of 1837, § 2; 5 Peters’ Laws U. S. 191; 4 Burr, 2319, 2323 ; 5 Mass. 514; 2 Watts & Serg. 163; 2 Penn. 462; 1 Paine, 45 ; 9 John. 507.)
    III. If the court of chancery had not originally any jurisdiction of the subject matter, the alledged stipulation could not confer it. It is not a personal privilege which may be waived by the parties. (Coffin v. Tracy, 3 Caine’s Rep. 129; Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 276; Overstreet v. Brown, 4 McCord, 79; Lindsley v. McLelland, 1 Bibb 262 ; 3 Blackf. 48.
   Strong, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. It was insisted on the argument before us, as it had been in the court below, by the counsel for the plaintiff, that the defendant was precluded from raising the question of jurisdiction by his written stipulation that he would not do so, given for a valuable consideration, and filed with the examiner as a document in the cause. It may have been a breach of faith and of good morals in the defendant to insist upon the objection after his solemn agreement to waive it; but that is no reason why any court should adopt the strong measure of grant ing a perpetual injunction in a case where it has no jurisdiction. It has been long and correctly settled that not even a direct assent by the parties can confer jurisdiction, or render the judgment of a tribunal in a matter over which it has not by law any cognizance, effectual. (Coffin v. Tracy, 3 Caines’ Rep. 129. Davis v. Packard, 7 Peters, 276.)

It was contended, although I think not strenuously, by the plaintiff’s counsel, that inventors have at common law and independently of the act of congress, the exclusive right to make and vend implements according to their models, and that consequently the statutory remedies are merely cumulative, and that the pre-existing light to resort to our state courts for redress in such cases is not impaired. It was formerly supposed in England, that the author of a literary composition had, indepen- . dently of any act of parliament, the exclusive right to print and publish it for sale, and could maintain an action against any one who should invade such right. And it was so decided by a majority of the judges of the court of king’s bench, in opposition to the opinion of Justice Yates, in the case of Miller v. Taylor, (4 Burr. 2305.) But that case was overruled, and the able opinion of Judge Yates finally prevailed in the House of Lords, in the case of Donaldson v. Becket et al. decided in 1774. (7 Bro. P. C. 88.) The case of Buckford v. Hood, (7 Durn. & East, 620,) is not at all in conflict with Donaldson v. Becket. Lord Kenyon’s opinion proceeded expressly on the ground that the act of parliament, while conferring a right, provided no remedy to the proprietor for its invasion, and he said that for that reason the common law remedy attached; and Judge Gross said that although the author’s right was extended for a second term, yet that the statutory penalties applied only to the first; and if there was no redress at common law there would be a right during the period prescribed in the second term without any means of- enforcing it.

But although there was at first some difference of opinion among the English judges as to the alledged common law right of literary authors, none of them ever supposed that the'inventor of a mechanical improvement had at common law the exclusive right to make and vend instruments according to his model, after he had published it to the world. All the judges admitted, in Miller v. Taylor, that the inventor had no such right' independently of his patent. Willes, J. said, “ As by the communication of an invention in trade, manufactures or machines, men are taught the art or science, they have a right to use it.” Astor, J. remarked that “ the property of the maker of a mechanical engine is confined to that individual thing which he has made ; and the machine made in imitation or resemblance of it is a different work in substance, materials, labor and expense, in which the maker [inventor] of the machine can not claim any property.” “ The imitated machine, therefore, is a new and different work.” And Yates, J. said, “We all know whenever annachine is published (be it ever so useful and ingenious) the inventor has no right to it, but only by patent.” That eminent judge, however, could not discover any material difference in this respect between literary works and mechanical inventions. He thought that neither of them had the requisite common law indicia of property. His opinion finally prevailed in the House of Lords, where it was fully sustained by Barons Eyre, Perrot and Adams, Chief Justice De Grey, and Lords Camden and Apsby; and it is now the settled law in England, and is, I think, generally admitted in this country. It furnishes a strong argument against the common law claim of inventors, that it has never been successfully asserted in any of the tribunals in this state or in the mother country.

The right in question was therefore created under congressional legislation, and the important question presented in this part of the case is whether the proprietors áre not confined in case of its actual or threatened invasion, to the remedies prescribed and the tribunals designated in the act. There can be no doubt as to the power of congress to mould the right, prescribe the remedy, and designate the court in which alone it can be enforced, under the general power to promote the progress of science and useful art, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, conferred upon that body by the constitution of the United States. (Article 1, § S, subd. 8.) The question is whether, so far as it relates to the exclusive limitation of the courts, it has in this instance exercised that power, either in express terms or inferentially.

The 17th section of the existing act to promote the progress of useful arts, passed July 4, 1836, (Acts of that year, p. 244,) provides that all actions, suits, controversies and cases arising under any law of the United States granting or confirming to inventors the exclusive right to their inventions or discoveries shall be originally cognizable, as well in equity as at law, by the circuit courts of the United States, or any district court having the power and jurisdiction of a circuit court; and then it confers expressly upon those tribunals the power to issue injunctions to prevent the violation of any right of dn inventor as secured to him by any law of the United States, upon such terms and conditions as such courts may deem reasonable. Had there been pre-existing remedies in favor of inventors independently of those resulting from congressional legislation, this act would not have taken them away. Nothing short of an express exclusion or of utter incompatibility between the preexisting and new remedies would have done that. But congress was then legislating upon a right conferred primarily and exclusively by its own action, and was maturing a system for its origin, progress and support, and the language used must be construed in reference to those objects. That is the only logical and reasonable way of applying terms of doubtful import. When therefore the act declares that the United States circuit courts (or district courts possessing similar powers) shall have original jurisdiction of all actions, suits, controversies and cases arising under the patent laws, the language is strong to show that it was intended to confine judicial action in such cases to those tribunals. It is undoubtedly true that those are, to some extent, inferior courts, and would have had no jurisdiction at all-in such cases unless it had been directly conferred upon thegi by the act, and that therefore the grant of power to them does not necessarily exclude the action of others having a co-ordinate or concurrent authority. But then if congress had intended that the state courts might take cognizance of those controversies, the terms used would have been less comprehensive—less peremptory—and although that body could not have directly conferred the power upon the state tribunals, they would have refrained from using terms which might well be interpreted as exclusive.

But I am unwilling to rest the decision of this point upon the literal construction of the act, as there are other controlling con-siderations about which there can be no doubt. It is very clear that when a party is confined to a statutory remedy, he must take it as it is conferred; and that where the enforcing tribunal is specified, the designation forms a part of the remedy, and all others are excluded. The rule is inapplicable of course where property or a right is conferred, and no remedy for its invasion is specified. Then the party may sustain his right or protect his property in the usual manner. That is in such cases reasonably supposed to be the intention of the legislature, as it could not be the design to confer a barren property or a fruitless right, which could not be protected or enforced any where. The same rule might prevail where the protection given by the legislature is by way of penalty to a common informer only, and no redress is given to the proprietor. The remark made by Lord Holt in Ewen v. Jones, (2 Salk. 415,) that wherever a statute gives a right the party shall by consequence have an action at law to recover it, is undoubtedly correct when applied to cases where the statute does not give any remedy to the proprietor for an invasion of his property or right.

The principle that where a statute confers a right, and prescribes adequate means for protecting it, the proprietor is confined to the statutory remedy, is conformable to the manifest intention of the legislature in such cases, and has therefore been properly settled in the courts of England, and in this country. It is manifestly right where the enforcement of the claim would be, áb in this case, restrictive of what was previously the common ¿right of all. There the restriction should unquestionably be confined to the terms of the grant; so are the cases. In the case of Miller v. Taylor, which I have already quoted, Willes, J. upon whose opinion great reliance was placed by the plaintiff’s counsel on the argument, said, “ if the right vested and the offence prohibited by the act be new, no remedy or mode of prosecution can be pursued besides those prescribed by the act. Where the privilege to one person prises out of and consists in a hew prohibition to others, there is no proceeding but for a breach of the prohibition. If the act has prescribed the remedy “for the party grieved, and the mqde of prosecution, all other modes and remedies are excluded.” Astor, J. remarked in the same case, that “ the question, (as to the common law remedy,) wholly depends upon the point whether it be a right newly ere ated or not. If it was, then it would receive its birth, duration and remedy from the statute, and no other remedy could be pursued.” Lord Mansfield, in the same case, expressed his full concurrence in the opinions of Judge Willes and Astor. In the case of Donaldson v. Becket, which I have also before quoted, six of the judges expressed their opinions in the house of lords, “that' an author by the statute of 8th Anne was precluded from every remedy except on the foundation of the statute, and on the terms and conditions prescribed thereby.” And to that effect was the judgment of the house of lords rendered on the motion of Lord Camden, seconded by the Lord Chancellor. The decision in the subsequent case of Buckford against Hood, which I have also quoted, does not contradict this principle, but strongly confirms it. Lord Kenyon said, “ it has been argued that as the statute in the same clause, that creates the right, has prescribed a particular remedy, that and no other can be resorted to. And if such appeared to have been the intention of the legislature, I should have subscribed to it, however inadequate it might be thought.”

The remedies given to patentees by the statute, are fully adequate for the protection of their interests, and the courts designaled competent to declare and enforce them. Whenever the right is invaded the patentee or his assignee may institute an action on the case in which he may recover three times the amount of damages actually sustained. So also a further violation of the patentee’s right may be prevented by injunction, and these remedies—all that would seem to be requisite—may be obtained in the courts of the power creating and moulding the right. Besides the right from its nature requires continued protection, and frequently new legislation, and both are peculiarly within the province of the national legislature. And there are some peculiar provisions (forming a part of the system,) relative to the action of the tribunals before whom the proceedings are conducted, which are inapplicable to our state courts, and which cannot be applied to them by congressional legislation. One of them (trebling the damages) I have already mentioned. Another is the class of defences allowed to the defendant under a notice given pursuant to the 15th section of the act. There is also a peculiar provision (in the 16th section of the act) in the case of interfering patents, allowing the court to adjudge either of them void in whole or in part; and by the 17th section of the act, the unsuccessful party, whether in an action for damages, or on a bill for an injunction, is entitled to a writ of error or appeal to the supreme court of the United States. Such writ of error or appeal, the defendant could not have, if unsuccessful in a state court; and certainly it would be against all rule to allow a suit to be instituted to enforce a right conferred by a statute, in a tribunal where the party prosecuted would be deprived of a valuable privilege given by the same statute.

The exclusive right of the inventor to make and vend his newly discovered implement, is wholly statutory. The constitution of the United States has vested the power of creating and moulding it in the general government. Whether concurrent power to legislate on this subject was reserved to the states, it is not necessary to inquire, as if it was, it has never been exercised in this state. But it has been fully and satisfactorily exercised by the national legislature, and the existing rights of inventors depend wholly upon its enactments. The act of 1836 gives to patentees all the encouragement and protection which they can reasonably desire. Competent tribunals are designated in the act to enforce its provisions, and in terms which may well be construed to indicate an intention to confine judicial action in such cases to them. Some of the designated remedies too, are peculiar, and not such as are furnished in the same form by the common law, and can be enforced in the manner indicated only by courts whose proceedings can be controlled by congressional legislation. Even under .the former patent law, which was by no means as strongly indicative of the exclusive action of tire federal courts, Chief Justice Kent thought that our state tribunals could not take notice of a patent right. His language in Livingston v. Van Ingen, (9 John. 582,) is, “if the respondents were in possession of a patent, the state courts could not take notice of it. They can not enforce a patent right, nor can they declare a patent void if obtained by fraud or imposition. The acts of congress have vested the federal courts with the exclusive cognizance of all infringements of patent rights, and such was the opinion and decision of the supreme court of this state in a late case, Parsons v. Barnard, (7 John. 144.)” I do not intend to question any part of the opinion expressed by my brother Bronson, in the case of Delafield v. The State of Illinois, (2 Hill, 159.) That opinion received the sanction of the court for the correction of errors, and without that confirmation it would have been entitled to the highest consideration. That learned judge held in that case, that the jurisdiction of the federal courts is not made exclusive by the constitution, proprio vigore, but he admitted that it must necessarily be so in criminal prosecutions and penal actions, and that congress may exclude the state courts in cases which are peculiar to, and spring out of the very existence of the general government, and of which the state courts had not cognizance prior, to the adoption of the constitution. Certainly the right of the patentee springs wholly from the general government, and therefore could not have been the subject of state jurisdiction antecedently to the adoption of the constitution of the United States.

Upon the whole I am satisfied that the court of chancery, before which this suit was instituted, had no jurisdiction over the subject matter; that the vice chancellor erred in awarding an injunction, and that the supreme court was right in reversing his decree. The decree of the supreme court should he affirmed, but without costs to either party.

Ordered accordingly-