author: Follett, J. Van Brunt, P. J.

text:
    George Barker, Resp’t, v. Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, App’lt.

      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

      Filed October 18, 1895.)

    1. Pleadings—Complaint.
    Allegations of time in a complaint are presumed to refer to the condition existing when the action was begun, unless controlled by other allegations showing that a different date is intended.
    S. Appeal—Presumption.
    Where.a general verdict is rendered, it is presumed that all material issues of fact raised by the pleadings are determined in favor of the prevailing party.
    3. Jurisdiction—Presumption.
    The jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction'is always presumed and can never be questioned, unless the want of jurisdiction is shown at . the trial or appears on the record.
    4. Pleadings—Answer—Foreign corporation.
    The nonresidence of a plaintiff in an action against a foreign ¿orporation is a plea in abatement and must be pleaded.
    5. Witness—Physician—Privilege.
    Where the knowledge of a witness is acquired from an inspection of and conversation with the plaintiff, and the relation of physician and patient existed between them, it is privileged.
    6. Same—Waiver.
    This privilege is not waived by the plaintiff’s having called other physi-' ■v, clans to testify to his condition anterior and subsequent to the time he was attended by the witness.
    7. Appeal—Exception.
    A general exception to a refusal to charge requests raises no question, unless every one of1 such requests should have been granted in the terms in which they were preferred.

      Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made on the minutes.

      William M. Ivins, for app’lt; Franklin Pierce, for resp’t.
   Follett, J.

This action was brought December 12, 1890, by a passenger against a common carrier, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by the alleged negligence of the defendant. September 23, 1890, the plaintiff took a second-cabin passage from Liverpool on defendant’s boat Gallia for New York, at which port the ship arrived October 4th. It is alleged that a defective port, which was a few inches above the plaintiff’s berth, admitted such quantities of water he was constantly wet, and thereby contracted pneumonia, which resulted in the permanent impairment of his health. The question lying at the threshold of this case is, has the court jurisdiction of the action? “An action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of the state, of by a domestic corporation, for any cause of action. * * *” Code Civ. Proc. § 1780. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant is a foreign corporation, “and that the plaintiff is a resident of the state of New York.” The defendant, in its answer, admits that it is a foreign corporation, is the owner of a steamship line, and is a common carrier , of' passengers, as alleged in the complaint, and “then denies that it has any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to any of the other allegations contained in the complaint.” Allegations of time in a complaint are presumed to refer to the conditions existing when the action was begun, unless controlled by other allegations showing that a different date is intended. Townshend v. Norris, 7 Hun, 239; Broome v. Taylor, 9 id. 155; Burns v. O'Neil, 10 id. 494. Under the pleadings, the residence of the plaintiff when the action was begun was a fact in issue. The defendant on the trial raised no question in respect to the jurisdiction of the court, or the residence of the plaintiff. A general verdict (Code Civ. Proc. § 1186) was rendered, and it is presumed that all material issues of fact raised by the pleadings were determined in favor of the prevailing party. Wolf v. Insurance Co., 43 Barb. 400; affirmed, 41 N. Y. 620 ; Van Pelt v. Otter, 2 Sweeny, 202 ; Murphy v. Lippe, 35 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 542; Soria v. Davidson, 53 id. 52: Id., 9 Civ. Proc. R. 23. The jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction is always presumed, and can never be questioned, unless the want of 'jurisdiction is shown at the trial or appears on the record. Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. 7 ; Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 130 ; Downes v. Bank, 6 id. 298; Hutchinson v. Brand, 6 How. Prac. 73. If no evidence had been given in respect to the residence of the plaintiff, the jurisdiction of the court could not have been questioned on appeal, unless the nonresidence of the plaintiff is disclosed by the record. The plaintiff testified on the trial, which occurred March 7, 1895, “I reside at 156 Eas^ 127th street, in the city of New York.” He was not asked by either side where he resided at any time previous to the trial, and there was no fact inconsistent with the idea that he was a resident of this-state on the 12th of December, 1890, when the action was begun. The vessel on which the plaintiff was a passenger arrived in New York October 4, 1890, and from that date until November 6, 1890, he was a patient in St. Vincent’s Hospital, in this city. The plaintiff was a cabinetmaker. Later in the year he worked for the Pullman Palace-Car Company, in Chicago, 111., which employment he left in the summer of 1891, and came East. ’ In the winter of 189 L and 1892 he worked for that company at St. Charles, Mo. After-wards he worked for the same company at Buffalo, until the spring of 1893, when he began work for the same company in their shop at Chicago, and continued there until June, 1893. Afterwards he worked for the Illinois Central Railroad at Chicago, and at the time of the trial he was at work for the Manhattan Elevated Railroad Company. The defendant asked no questions of the plaintiff in respect to his residence, and gave no evidence on that issue. Again, upon the defendant’s offer, the complaint was received in evidence. The testimony does' not conclusively show that the plaintiff was not a resdent of this state when the action was begun, and the presumption of jurisdiction is not rebutted. If it can be said that the evidence is capable of different inferences as to the place of residence of the plaintiff, the answer is that the jury has drawn the inference and determined the question in his favor. In case the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction turns upon a question of fact, the issue must be determined by the jury. U. S. v. Sanders, Hempst. 483; Fed. Cas. No. 16,220; Thomp. Trials, § 2186; Roderigas v. Savings Inst., 63 N. Y. 460, 464. Section 427 of the Code of Procedure provided that an action could be brought by a resident of this state against a foreign corporation for any cause of action; that an action could be brought against such a corporation by a nonresident in case the cause of action arose in this state, or the subject of the action be situated within this state. Root v. Railway Co., 65 Barb. 619; 1 Thomp. &. 0.10 affirmed, 55 N. Y. 636, was brought by a resident of the state of Michigan against a Canadian corporation for the loss of the plaintiff’s goods in Canada or in the state of Michigan. It was held that the cause of action did not arise in this state, that the plaintiff was a nonresident, and that the. action could not have been maintained had the defendant pleaded the plaintiff’s nonresidence, but-that the objection was waived by failure to raise it on the trial, and that it could not be raised for the first time on appeal. In Downes v. Bank, 6 Hill, 297, it was held that the nonresidence of a plaintiff in an acttion against a foreign corporation was a plea in abatement, and must be pleaded. The same rule was held in Pease v. Railroad Co., 10 Daly, 459, and in Steers v. Steamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1, 7. The issue in respect to the plaintiff’s residence having been found in his favor by the general verdict, and the question not having been raised at the trial, it must be held that the court had jurisdiction of this action.

The position of the learned counsel for the defendant—that the-court erred in submitting the questions as to the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence to the jury—cannot- be sustained. The plaintiff testified that the port leaked so badly that his berth and the one underneath were saturated with water. Measures, who occupied a stateroom near the plaintiff’s, testified that on the morning of the 25th he was in the plaintiff’s room; saw that his berth and the one underneath it - were wet; that the next day he was in the plaintiff’s room, and that the water had come through the port as before; that he saw water -coming through it: and that on the third and fourth days he saw water coming through it. The plaintiff complained of the condition of the port to the employes of the ship, as they admit, though they testified that it was in perfect order and did not leak. This evidence presented a question of fact, which was rightly submitted to the jury, and it cannot be said that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence. The defendant did not deny that, in case the port leaked in the manner described, it was defective, and might have been easily remedied. The defendant’s marine superintendent testified that when the ports are perfect, as they should be, they do not admit water, and that they should be kept in condition so as not to leak. The learned counsel for the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, by noncompliance with the following rule, which was posted in his •stateroom: (6) Passengers having any cause for complaint are requested to communicate at once with the chief steward.” The plaintiff did complain of the condition of the port to the first and second intermediate stewards and to the bedroom steward, and the chief steward testified that he went into the plaintiff’s room on Wednesday, October 1st, and the plaintiff told him that his bed was damp, and pointed to the port. The ship’s physician testified that the plaintiff complained to him that water had come through the port and wet his bed. There is certainly no foundation for the claim that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not bringing to the attention of the defendant’s servants the •condition of the port.

The court did not err in refusing to permit the defendant to prove by Dr. Haubold the condition of the plaintiff when he -entered St. Vincent’s Hospital, and the statements made by him in respect to the previous condition of his health. The knowledge of this witness was acquired from an inspection of and conversations with the plaintiff while the relation of physician and patient existed between them, and was privileged. Code Civ. Proc. -834. This privilege was not waived by the plaintiff’s having called other physicians to testify to his condition anterior and subsequent to the time he was in the hospital. Hope v. Troy & L. Railroad Co., 40 Hun, 430; affirmed, 110 N. Y. 643; 16 St. Rep. 998; Record v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448; 12 St. Rep. 395; affirmed, 120 N. Y. 646.

The charge was eminently fair and elaborate, covering every issue of fact in the case, and by it the jury was correctly instructed in the rules of law applicable to those issues. The learned counsel for the defendant, not being satisfied with this presentation of the case to the jury, preferred thirty-eight requests to charge, eighteen of which were charged without qualification, though many of them were immaterial, and others were covered by the instructions previously given. Twenty requests were refused,— some partially, and others wholly. Thereupon the defendant’s counsel took this exception: “I except to your honor’s refusal to charge those requests which you declined.” Many of the requests were untenable,.others were irrelevant, and others had been covered by the charge as delivered. A general exception of this kind raises no question, unless every one of the requests should have been granted in the terms in which they were preferred. Hoyt v. Railroad Co., 37 N. Y. 678; Smedis v. Railroad Co., 88 id. 13; Read v. Nichols, 118 id. 224; 28 St. Rep. 867; Huerzler v. Cent. C. T. Railroad Co., 139 N. Y. 490; 54 St. Rep. 836; Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46.

An examination of the entire record fails to disclose any error-calling for a reversal of the judgment, which, and the order denying a motion for a new trial, shbuld be affirmed, with costs.

Parker, J., concurs.

Van Brunt, P. J.

I concur in the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Justice Follett in the case at bar. I cannot, however, concur in the statement in his opinion, as applicable to this case, that, the supreme.court being a court of general jurisdiction, its jurisdiction must be presumed, and cannot be questioned unless the want of jurisdiction is shown at the trial, or appears upon the record. In respect to foreign corporations, the supreme .court has never been a court of general jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction of actions against foreign corporations, except such as is conferred by statute. Hence the rule which ordinarily applies to-this court, as a court of general jurisdiction, cannot obtain in actions against foreign corporations. It must appear somewhere-in the record that jurisdiction exists. The pleader, in drawing the complaint in the case at bar, evidently understood this position, because he alleges that the defendant is a foreign corporation, and that the plaintiff is a resident of the state of New York, bringing himself within the class of persons who may resort to the courts of this state for the purpose of redressing wrongs-received by them from foreign corporations. This allegation < in regard to the residence of the plaintiff is presumed, under the ordinary rules governing allegations of time in a complaint, to refer to the conditions existing when the action was begun, unless it appears otherwise from the pleading. It is true that this allegation of residence was denied by the answer, but the record contains evidence in regard to the-residence of the plaintiff, and no objection seems to have been taken at the trial that this allegation of the complaint was not proven. We majr therefore fairly infer that all claim in that behalf was abandoned, no point having been made in respect thereto, .and that the evidence, meager as it is, was considered sufficient. Under these circumstances it is too late now to raise the question of residence, and claim want of jurisdiction because that fact is not established. It is undoubtedly true that, if the record had contained evidence showing that this plaintiff was not a resident of this state at the time of the commencement of the action, the court might at any stage of the actian, of its own motion, raise the question and dismiss the action. Robinson v. Oceanic Navigation Co., 112 N. Y. 315; 20 St. Rep. 741. For the other reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Follett, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Daly, G. J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Samuel D. Folson et al., Resp’ts, v. Robert C. Lewis, Impleaded, etc., App’lt.

      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,

      Filed December 16, 1895.)

    Brokers—Commissions.
    A broker is not entitled to commissions though the adult owners of the property, at the time of employment, misrepresented to him that leave of the court for sale of the infant owners’ interest had been already provided for, where the customer refuses to take title under such an order even though one could be obtained.
    Appeal from a judgment of the city court, affirming a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    The action was brought by plaintiffs, who are real-estate brokers, against three defendants, only one of whom was served and answered, to recover one per cent, commission upon procuring, at defendants’ request, a purchaser for the house and lot, 146 East Sixty-First street, in the city of Mew York, at the price of $29,000.. The answer denied the employment, and alleged that, in answer to an inquiry by one of the plaintiffs, defendants said that the-owners of the premises would sell the same for $29,000, but told him that part of the owners were minors, and could only convey under an order of the court. It is also denied that plaintiffs procured a purchaser who was accepted by the defendants, as alleged in the complaint.

      Benjamin Wright, for app’lt; Samuel Mullen, for resp’ts.
   Daly, G. J.

— We assume from the finding of the jury the-facts- as testified to by plaintiffs — that they were employed as brokers by the adult owners, these defendants, to sell the house and lot described in the complaint, and were informed that an order of court authorizing the sale of the interests of the infant owners had been provided for. Mo order in fact had been applied for, and the purchaser produced by the plaihtiffs refused to make a contract under advice of counsel, whose opinion was that the court would not find any necessity for a sale of the infants’ interest, as their father had left, besides the house and lot in question, other real property, and a very large personal estate. Defendants proposed to the purchaser to make an application to the court for leave to sell, but the latter declined to-take title that way, suggesting, on the other hand, the foreclosure of a mortgage then on the property, and the taking of title through a sale. This proposition was rejected by the defendants.

The question presented on this appeal is the right of the brokers to recover commissions under the circumstances. Conceding all the [acts claimed by plaintiffs,—that they were induced to look for a purchaser by the representation that leave of the court for a sale of the infants’ interest bad already been provided for,—it does not appear that they brought a purchaser willing to take title through such proceedings, even if the order therein had been already made. The objection made by the counsel for the proposed purchaser was, as he testified, to the propriety or legality of. an order made under the state of facts disclosed ; and, while he was willing to wait while title was made through another proceeding, he would not accept it through an order for the sale of the infants’ interest. He made no objection that the order had not been already obtained, and it therefore appears that the representation of defendants to that effect to the broker was wholly immaterial. This is not a case in which the sale falls through through the inability or unwillingness or the owner to give title. The broker knew at the outset the source of title which was to be offered, and it was for him, before offering a purchaser, to ascertain that the latter would take such title. This h% did not do, and his loss of time and trouble were caused by his neglect of that simple precaution, and not from any false assurance of defendants ; for it was certain that the. proposed purchaser would not buy if the assurance had been true. The failure of plaintiffs to procure a purchaser willing to take title through an order for the sale of the interest of the infants, which was one of the terms of the employment, was duly raised at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, and at the close of the whole case, and is presented by proper exceptions. It was error to refuse defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant in this court, and of the appeal in the city court, and of the former trial, to abide the avent.

All concur.


text:
    Court of Appeals.
    Matter of Daly.
    November 27, 1894.

      Adolph O. Hottenroth, for app’lt; David, J. Dean, for resp’t,
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.


text:
    Matter of Application of Department of Public Works.
    November 27, 1894.

      James A. Deering, for app’lt; David J. Dean, for resp’t,
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.


text:
    Augustus Levy, Resp’t, v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., App’lt.
    December 18, 1894.

      George Zabriskie, for app’lt; George W. Wingate, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 53 St. Rep. 579.


text:
    Solomon Gallinger, App’lt, v. Iowa C. R. Co. et al., Resp’ts.
   This case was argued and decided with Dow v. Iowa C. R. Co.


text:
    Aaron R. Stevens et al., Resp’ts, v. Union Trust Co. et al., App’lts.
    January 15, 1895.

      Wheeler H. Peekham, for app’lts; Edward Winslow Paige, for resp’ts.
   Affirmed on authority of Harrison v. same Defendants.


text:
    Lillian Cauchois, App’lt, v. William B. Proctor, Resp’t.
    January 15, 1895.

      Boger M. Sherman, for app’lt; Theron G. Strong, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed. All concur.


text:
    Leonora S. Gray, Resp’t, v. William T. Baker et al., App’lts.
    January 15, 1895.

      Henry F. & James Ooupe, for app’lt; David J Newland, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed. All concur.


text:
    Jacob A. Zimmerman et al., App’lts, v. Christian Jourgensen, Resp’t.
    January 15, 1895.

      Isaac H. Maynard, for app’lts ; Fmnk Budd, for resp’t.
   No-opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, except Earll, Gray and O’Brien, JJ., dissenting. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 13.


text:
    Paulina Colburn, Resp’t, v. Adam Marsh et al., App’lts.
    January 15, 1895.

      J. I. Fowler, for app’lts; William H. Henderson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 52 St. Rep. 378.


text:
    Louis Knell et al., Resp’ts, v. William Stephan et al., App’lts.
    January 15, 1895.

      William H. Henderson, for app’lts; O. S. Cary, for resp’ts.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion of general term. All concur. Aff’g 48 St. Rep. 764.


text:
    Henry C. Miner, App’lt, v. Augustin Daly, Resp’t.

      David May, for app’lt; Stephen H. Olin, for resp’t.
   Judgment affirmed on apion below. All concur. Aff’g 53 St. Rep. 232.


text:
    The People, Resp’t, v. Carl Fuller, App’lt.
    January 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.


text:
    Theodore Moss, App’lt, v. Eugene Tompkins, Resp’t.
    January 15, 1895.

      Stephen H. Olin, for app’lt; A. J. Dittenhoefer for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed on authority of Bernstein v. Meech. All concur. Aff'g 53 St. Rep. 39.


text:
    William P. Roome et al., App’lts, v. Frederick C. Jennings et al., Resp’ts.
    January 15, 1895.

      F. A. Thomson, for app’lts; Henry B. Twombly, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 52 St. Rep. 507.


text:
    George B. Swikehard et al., as Commissioners, etc., Resp’ts, v. Fred. P. Michels et al., App’lts.
    January 15, 1895.

      Thomas Baines, for app’lts; William F. Cogswell, for resp’ts.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion of Bumsey, J.', below. All concur. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 875.


text:
    Herman J. Von Kamen, App’lt, v. Diederich Roes, Resp’t.
    January 15, 1895.

      Bernard J. Isecke, for app’lt;. A. E. Berrick, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 48 St. Rep. 920.


text:
    The People ex rel. William H. Howes, Resp’t, v. Thomas F. Grady, Police Justice, etc., App’lt.
    January 15, 1895.
   Order affirmed on opinion below. All concur! Aff’g 50 St. Rep. 128.


text:
    James Brady, Resp’t, v. Henry E. Valentine, App’lt.
    January 15, 1895.

      W. A. Purrington, for app’lt; H. B. Hubbard, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 50 St. Rep. 570.


text:
    William H. Clark, App’lt, v. Charles T. Poor, Impleaded, etc., Resp’t.
    January 22, 1895.

      Lamed, Warren <6 Knapp, for motion; Bedfield & Bedfteld, opposed.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 122.


text:
    The People ex rel. Charles Young, Resp’t, v. James C. Stout, as Agent, etc., App’lt.
    January 29, 1895.

      Howard H. Widener, for app’lt; Henry J. Sullivan, for resp’t.
   Order affirmed on opinion below. All concur, except Bartlett, J., dissenting, and Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 152.


text:
    Benedict Fischer et al., Resp’ts, v. Berthold Blank, App’lt.
    January 29, 1895.

      Chas. Qoldsier, for app’lt; Rowland Cox; for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 334.


text:
    John S. Keyes et al., as Executors, etc., Resp’ts, v. Barbara Ellensohn et al., Resp’ts.
    January 29, 1895.

      Isaac N. Miller, for app’lts ; Edward C. Perkins, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 227.


text:
    The People ex rel. Benjamin Brewster et al., as Executors, etc., Resp’ts, v. The Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, App’lt.
    January 29, 1895.

      Da/eid J, Bean, for app’lt; Horace E. Beming, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur.


text:
    John W. Macy, as Trustee, etc., App’lt, v. David T. Williams et al., as Executors, etc., Resp’ts.
    January 29, 1895.

      Charles H. Judson, for app’lt; W. W. Buckley, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 357.


text:
    National Commercial Bank of Albany, App’lt, v. Charlotte C. Gray, Individually, etc., et al., Resp’ts.
    January 29, 1895.

      Abraham Lansing, for app’lt; Jacob H. Clute, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 737.


text:
    Cornelia R. Kane, as Executrix, etc., App’lt, v. Robert Lenox Banks, Resp’t.
    February 5, 1895.

      John M. Bowers, for appl’t; Robert W. BeForest, for resp’t.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion below. Aff’g 53 St. Rep. 911.


text:
    William S. Keily, as Receiver, etc., Resp’t, v. Mechanics and Traders Bank, App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      Charles Strauss, for app’lt; Mm'ris J. Hirsch, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, Aff’g 39 St. Rep. 438.


text:
    Mary J. Killoran, as Admistratrix, etc., App’lt, v. Clinton W. Sweet, Resp’t.
    February 5, 1895.

      Henry A. Forster, for app’lt; Edward Jacobs, for resp’t.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 482.


text:
    Lucy S. Morrison, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t, v. Metropolitan Telephone and Telegraph Company, App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      Burton N. Harrison, for app’lt; Thomas E. Pearsall, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, except Peckham, Gray and IIaight, JJ., dissenting.

Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 887.


text:
    James T. Watson, Resp’t, v. Elizabeth P. King, as Surviving Executrix, etc., App'lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      George W. Parkhurst, for app’lt; John B. Higgins, for resp’t.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 766.


text:
    Richard Fitzpatrick, App’lt, v. William D. Tweddle, as Executor, etc., Resp’t.
    February 5, 1895.

      Michael J. Scanlon, for app’lt; Louis Marshall, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 84.


text:
    Daniel B. Halstead et al., as Executors, etc., Resp’ts, v. George W. Striker, as Executor, etc., Impleaded, etc., App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      Archibald L. Sessions, for app’lt; John A. Tayler, for resp’ts.
   Order affirmed and judgment absolute in favor of plaintiff, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 57 St. Rep. 125.


text:
    Ann Byrne, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t. v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      Matthew Hale, for app’lt; Isaac M. Hopper, for resp’t.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 58 St. Rep. 577.


text:
    James Flanagan, as Executor, etc., Resp’t, v. Patrick Fox, App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      Archibald 0. Shenstone, for app’lt; J. Baldwin Hands, for resp’t.
   Order affirmed and judgment absolute in favor of plaintiff, on opinion below. All concur.


text:
    Caroline L. Brown et al., App’lts, v. Charles J. Richter, as Executor, etc., et al., Resp’ts.
    February 5, 1895.

      J. A. Dennison, for app’lts; L. A. Lockwood, G. L. Hives and Joseph E. Merrill, Jr., for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 58 St. Rep. 703.


text:
    George Lewis Prentiss, as General Guardian, etc., Resp’t, v. John S. Weatherly et al., as Executors, etc., Impleaded, etc., App’lts.
    February 5, 1895.

      Benjamin Patterson, for app’lts; George F. Bentley, for resp’t.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 52 St. Rep. 80.


text:
    Autrilla Foy, Resp’t, v. Maud L. Dixon, as Administratrix, etc., App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      A. O. Pickard, for app’lt; William H. Henderson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 889.


text:
    John W. Crawford, Jr., as Administrator, etc., Resp’t, v. Wilson & Bailey Manufacturing Company, App’lt.
    February 5. 1895.

      Charles O. Nodal, for app’lt; John G. Hobinson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 457.


text:
    Eugene Smith, as Executor, etc., Resp’t, v. Fredericka Rentz, App’lt.
    February 5, 1895.

      Leopold Leo, for app’lt; H. B. Olosson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed with costs and ten per cent, damages. All concur. Aff’g 58 St. Rep. 868.


text:
    Lizzi Rettig, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t, v. Fifth Avenue Transportation Company, Limited App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      Charles Steele, for app’lt; Charles Steckler, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 235.


text:
    Miles M. O’Brien et al., as Receiver, etc., App'lts, v. Ronald T. McDonald et al., as Resp’ts.
    February 8, 1895.

      Louis Marshall, for app’lts; William B. Putney, for resp’ts.
   Judgment affirmed on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 60 St. Rep. 748.


text:
    Kate A. Primeau, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t, v. National Life Association, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      W. A. Sutherland, for app’lt; Henry Purcell, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff'g 60 St. Rep. 41.


text:
    Otto J. Lang, as Ancillary Executor, etc. Resp’t, v. Houston, West Street and Pavonia Ferry Company, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      John J. Townsend, for app’lt; George W. Hopkins, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, except Finch and Gray, JJ., not voting. Aff’g 58 St. Rep. 594.


text:
    Mary Wiley, an Infant, etc., Resp’t, v. Long Island Railroad Company, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      William G. Beecher, for app’lt; Isaac H. Mayna/rd, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against plaintiff.; All concur, except Gray and Bartlett, JJ., dissenting. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 157.


text:
    Andrew J. Delaney, as Administrator, etc., Resp’t, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      Henry Galbraith Ward, for app’lt; Penis A. Spellissy, for resp't.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed.' All concur. Aff’g 60 St. Rep. 785.


text:
    John Weber et al., Resp’ts, v. James Wallace, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      Henry Thompson, for app’lt; Louis Marshall, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.


text:
    John G. Johnson, as Administrator, etc., Resp’t, v. Long Island Railroad Company, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      William C. Beecher, for app’lt; J. Edwa/rd Swanston, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages. All concur. Aff’g 62 St. Rep. 46.


text:
    Ruth Percy, as Administratrix, etc., App’lt, v. Fitchburg Railroad Company, Resp’t.
    February 8, 1895.

      G. B. Wellington, for app’lt; F. F, Hamilton, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.


text:
    Eulalia A. Meads, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t, v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, App’lt.
    February 8, 1895.

      Jonn W. Punwell, for app’lt; John Gillette, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, except Finch and Haight, JJ., not voting.


text:
    Matter of Ayrault’s Will.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      Ernest F. Ayrault, for app’lt; John G. Milburn, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below. All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 638.


text:
    Bishop, App’lt, v. Hendrick, Resp't.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 11, 1895.

      John O. Keeler, for app’lt; D. G. Griffin, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 100.


text:
    Blumenthal, Resp’t, v. Einstein et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 11, 1895.

      A. B. Dyett, for app’lts; William Man, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 264.


text:
    Board of Education, Etc., of Waterford, App’lt, v. First Nat. Bank of Richfield Springs et al., Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      J. W. Houghton and James W. Verbeck, for app’lt; G. B. Wellington, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.


text:
    Boyd, Resp’t, v. Boyd et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      Henry Daily, Jr., for app’lts; Edward W. 8. Johnston, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 65 St. Rep. 502.


text:
    Boyd, Resp’t, v. Boyd et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      Edward W. 8. Johnston, for app’lts; Henry Daily, Jr., for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. AfiE’g 66 St. Rep. 731.


text:
    Brown, App’lt, v. Brown, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      Horace Becor, Jr., for app’lt; John E. Olarke, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 266.


text:
    Cantoni, Resp’t, v. Forester, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      Samuel H. Bamdall, for app’lt; Louis Edwin Bomeisler for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 67 St. Rep. 375.


text:
    Matter of Clark’s Will.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 11, 1895.

      John Foley, for app’lts; J. S. L’Amoreaux, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 85.


text:
    Cleveland, App’lt, v. Town of Pittsford, Respt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      George F. Slocum, for app’lt: George F. Yeoman, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, except Haight, J,, no6 "sitting. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 848.


text:
    Collins, Resp’t, v. Burroughs, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      James M. Hunt, for app’lt; B. E. Valentine, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed. All concur.


text:
    Dye, Resp’t, v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 11, 1895.

      Louis L. Babcock, for app’lt; H. J. Swift, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 583.


text:
    Faxon, Resp’t, v. Mason et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      W. B. Hornblower, for the motion. Franklin Blien, opposed.
   No opinion.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, unless defendant John Mason shall cause to be executed the proper undertaking on appeal to this court within ten days from service of a copy of this order upon his attorney of record. Ordered accordingly. All concur. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 882.


text:
    Hedges, Resp’t, v. Payne, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 4, 1895.

      Arthur H. Smith, for app’lt; Henry E. Howlan d, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 66 St. Rep. 405.


text:
    Ladenburg et al., App’lts, v. Commercial Bank of Newfoundland et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1885.

      B. H. Benn, for app’lts; John A. Mapes, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 67 St. Rep. 466.


text:
    Madden, Resp’t, v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, App’lts.

      Oharles O. Berning, for app’lt; Samuel Wyman Smith, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Affirmed, on opinion below with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within twenty days after service of a copy of the order entered upon the remittitur. Ordered accordingly. All concur. Aff’g 66 St. Rep. 79.


text:
    People ex rel. Argus Co., Resp’ts, v. Palmer, Secretary of State et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      William B. Kisselburgh, Jr., for app’lts; Amasa J. Parker, Jr., for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, on opinion of special term. All concur. '


text:
    People ex rel. Ostrander, App’lt, v. Morton et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      Robert BE. MeOormiek, for app’lt; Henry 0. Nevitt, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed on opinion below. All concur.


text:
    People ex rel. Pike et al., App’lts, v. Barker et al., Commissioners, Resp’ts.

      Luden B. Ohase, for app’lts; George S. Ooleman, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 66 St. Rep. 873.


text:
    People ex rel. Stowell, Resp’t, v. Board of Sup’rs of Steuben Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      M. Rumsey Miller, for app’lt; John F. Parkhurst, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Aff’g 62 St. Rep. 691.


text:
    People ex rel. Sweeley, App’lt, v. Wilson et al., Police Commissioners, Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      James W. Baton, for app’lt, v. William P. Rudd, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur, except Haight, J., not voting.


text:
    Roberts v. Vietor et al.

    Ct. Ap.,
    April 14, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, without costs.


text:
    Rutgers Female College of City of New York, App’lt, v. Tallman, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      Albert Stiekney, for app’lt; W. H. Newman, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below. All concur. Aff'g 63 St. Rep. 481.


text:
    Steven, Resp’t, v. Lord, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 4, 1895.

      Thenford Woodhull, for app’lt; Jasper W. Gilbert, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 65 St. Rep. 466.


text:
    Matter of Westurn’s Will.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      0. H. Sturges, for app’lt; John O. Keeler, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 885.


text:
    White Resp’t, v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 11, 1895.

      B. G. Robinson, for app’lt; Frederick Gollin, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 888.


text:
    Wood, Resp’t, v. Town of Gilboa, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      1. H. Maynard, for app’lt; H. Krum, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur, except Gray, J., dissenting. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 300.


text:
    Wood, Resp’t, v. Town of Gilboa, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    May 21, 1895.

      I. H,'Maynard, for app’lt; H. Krum, for resp’t
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur, except Gray, dissenting. Affi’g 59 St. Rep. 869.


text:
    Wuensch, Resp’t, v. Pulitzer, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    June 14, 1895.

      C. J. Shea/rn, for app’lt; Julius Lehman, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed. All concur. Aff’g 65 St. Rep. 884.


text:
    Allen Resp’t, v. Allen et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion to put on calendar granted.


text:
    Allen, Resp’t, v. Sisson et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      John A. Vanee, for app’lts ; B. II. Neary, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with, costs, on opinion below. Aff’g 48 St. Rep. 872. All concur.


text:
    Anderson, Resp’t, v. Anderson, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      William J. Carr, for app’lt; Chañes J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 57 St. Rep. 868.


text:
    Armstrong v. Lake Champlain Granite Co.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied ; §10 costs.


text:
    Atlas Iron Const. Co., App'lt, v. Ferguson, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1896.

      Charles Vox, for app’lt ; J. A. Young, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 886.


text:
    Auburn Button Co., Resp’t, v. Sylvester. App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 1, 1895.

      B. C. Aiken, for app’lt; W. B. Hughitt, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 558.


text:
    Baer, App’lt, v. Bonynge, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, without costs.


text:
    Barrow Steamship Co , Limited, Resp’t, v. Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., Limited, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap..
    November 26, 1895.

      Charles B. Alexomder, for app’lt; Bsek Coreen, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.


text:
    Bergin, Resp’t, v. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Frank H. Hiscoek, for app’lt ; Louis Marshall, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., not sitting. Aff’g 59 St. Rep. 886.


text:
    Matter of Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Com’rs.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October, 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for preference granted, and cause' ordered placed on calendar for Wednesday, October 16, 1895.


text:
    Matter of Board of Street Opening. In re Audubon Ave. Matter of New York Inst. for the Blind, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      James A. Peering, for app’lt; David J. Dean, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur.


text:
    Breck, App’lt, v. Ringler, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      D. C. Calvin, for app’lt : Henry Daily, Jr., for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 881.


text:
    Broadway Sav. Inst., App’lt, v. Town of Pelham, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to withdraw appeal granted upon payment of all costs before,notice of argument.


text:
    Broadway Sav. Inst. of City of New York, App’lt, v. Town of Pelham, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. Held, costs referred to in decision ubi supra, means costs in this court. In re Water Com’rs of Amsterdam, 104 N. Y. 677.


text:
    Bruno, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Matthew Male, for app’lt; J, Edward Swanstromg, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Gray, J., not sitting. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 215.


text:
    Butts, Resp’t, v. J. C. Mackey Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 1, 1895.

      E. N. Wilson, for app’lt; William Ndthl. Gogswell, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 137.


text:
    Carlson, Resp’t, v. Winterson, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to advance granted. Case to be put on calendar, and heard at next session of the court.


text:
    Charde et al., Resp’ts, v. City of Brooklyn, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 3, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, without costs.


text:
    Charde et al., Resp’ts, v. City of Brooklyn, App’lt. Simms, Resp’t, v. Same, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Albert G. McDonald and It. B. Greenwood,, Jr., for app’lt; Oscar Frisbie, for resp’ts Charde ; Eseh Gowen, for resp’t Simms.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed in Simms case. Judgment reversed in'the Charde case on the opinions of general term in the Simms case, with costs. 87 Hun, 35. All concur. Charde case, rev’g 61 St. Rep. 51; Simms case, aff’g 67 St. Rep. 611.


text:
    Clark, Resp’t, v. Clark, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion granted, and cause ordered placed on calendar to he heard at next session of the court.


text:
    Clark, Resp’t, v. Exchange Printing Co., et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. . Motion to amend remittitur denied, without costs.


text:
    Close, Resp’t, v. Noye, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 3, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, without costs.


text:
    Corley, App’lt, v. McElmeel et al., App’lts, Stover et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reference granted, and case set down for hearing this term, as the parties may agree.


text:
    Cutting et al., Resp’t, v. Stokes, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      William B. Martin, for app’lt ; J. Archibald Murray, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Bartlett, J., dissenting. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 184.


text:
    Demarest, App’lt, v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with costs.


text:
    Drucker, Resp’t, v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Brainard Tolies, for app’lts ; Roger Foster, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of general term. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 130.


text:
    Dunning, Resp’t, v. Dunning et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 8, 1895.

      Menry A. Brann and A. Britton Mavens, for app’lts ; William G. Bussey and Daniel Whitford, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 397.


text:
    Eager, Resp’t, v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      I. N. Ames, for app’lt; William Nottingham, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below, with costs. All concur. Afi’g 55 St. Rep. 29.


text:
    Fernbacher, Resp’t, v. Roosevelt et al., Police Com’rs, App'lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1896.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed on argument.


text:
    Foran, App’lt, v. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co., Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Moses Shire, for app’lt; Charles A. Pooley, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant,, with costs, on opinion at general term. All concur, except Finch and Haight,, JJ., not sitting. Aff’g 52 St. Rep. 936.


text:
    Fowler, App’lt, v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co., Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      J. Newton Piero, for app’lt; Hamilton Harris, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J.d not sitting. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 307.


text:
    Fox et al., App’lts, v. Matthiessen, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to fix day certain, etc., granted.


text:
    Gaffney v. Brooklyn City R. Co.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   ■ No opinion. Motion to amend remittitur granted.


text:
    Gaffney, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Matthew Hale, for app’lt; Charles J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Gray, J.„ not sitting. Aff’g 58 St. Rep. 119.


text:
    Gardenier, App’lt, v. Perry et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      W. H. Cmdenier, for app’lt; Émmett J. Ball, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 891.


text:
    Gebbie et al., Resp’ts, v. Stitt, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      H. C. Cook, for app’lt; Frank Bowman, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs.- All concur.


text:
    George, App’lt, v. Carpenter et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 8, 1895.

      Edward B. Whitney, for app’lt; Howmd Van Sinderen, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinion below, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 57 St. Rep. 123.


text:
    Gleeson, App’lt, v. Brummer, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 3, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to prefer denied, without costs.


text:
    Granniss & Hurd Lumber Co., Resp’t, v. Deeves, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Abner C. 1 homos, for app’lt; Miehael H. Cardozo, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with cost, on opinion in general term. AH concur. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 674.


text:
    Haines et al., Resp’ts, Gano et al., App’lts, v. Patterson et al., Resp’ts. Patterson v. McGunn et al. Gano v. Same.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Preston Stevenson, for app’lts; Charles Fox, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 67 St. Rep. 459.


text:
    Hecla Consol. Gold Min. Co., Resp’t, v. O’Neill, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion of appellant for leave to'file correct copies of cases and points granted on payment of $10 costs. Motion of respondent to dismiss appeal denied, without costs to either party.


text:
    Hecla Consol. Gold Min. Co., Resp’t, v. O’Neill, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      'William Lane O’Neill, for app’lt; J. Noble Hayes, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 55 St Rep. 436.


text:
    Hellman et al., Resp’ts, v. Forty-Second St. & G. St. Ferry R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Freling H. Smith, for app’lt; (George Hoadly, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty-Second St. & G. St. Ferry R. Co., 137 N. Y. 231. All concur. Aff’g 57 St. Rep. 223.


text:
    Hennessy, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Matthew Hale, for app’lt; James Q. Church, for resp’t..
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Gray and Haight, JJ., not sitting. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 151.


text:
    Heyler, Resp’t, v. New York News Pub. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Simon W. Bosendale, for app’lt; Louis J. Grant, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 68.


text:
    Howe’s Cave Lime & Cement Co., Resp’t, v. Howe’s Cave Ass’n, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.

      Isaac H. Ma/yna/rd, for app’lt; J. Lee Tucker, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion at general term. All concur. Aff’g 68 St. Rep. 799.


text:
    Isola et al., Resp’ts v. Weber et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with costs.


text:
    Jamer, App’lt, v. Jacobs et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      E. J. Brown, for app’lt; Stephen B. Jacobs, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 85.


text:
    Joslyn, App’lt, v. Raymond et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      John B. Abbott, for app’lt; S. D. Bentley, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 40 Hun, 633.


text:
    Julian, App’lt. v. Woolsey, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.

      George G. Genet, for app’lt; George J. Greenfield, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 68 St. Rep, 472.


text:
    Kessler et al., App'lts, v. Levy et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Simon Sultan, for app’lts; B. F. Einstein, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g ’ 66 St. Rep. 697.


text:
    Kieley, Resp’t, v. Central Complete Combustion Manf’g Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion to amend remittitur denied, with costs.


text:
    King, Resp’t, v. Second Ave. R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1896.

      George H. Han't, for resp’t; John M. Scribner, for app’lt.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 58 St. Rep. 169.


text:
    Knapp, App’lt, v. Hall, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      ITathaniél Foote, for app’lt; Theodore Bacon, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for the defendant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. All concur, except Bartlett, J., dissenting, and Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 54 St. Rep. 395.


text:
    Koke et al., App’lts, v. Balken et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Josiah T. Marean, for app’lts; William R. Martin, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 57 St Rep. 140.


text:
    Matter of Laudy’s Will.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 15, 1895.

      Daniel G. Rollins, for app’lt; II. B. Glosson and P. H. Vernon, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Motion denied and the judgment in case affirmed on the opinion in general term, with costs. All concur, except Bartlett, J., not sitting, fl’g 60 St. Rep. 700.


text:
    Matter of Laudy’s Will.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 3, 1895.

      Daniel 0. Rollins, for the motion; P. H. Vernon and H. B. Glosson, opposed.
   No opinion. Motion granted. Tibi supra.


text:
    Lewisohn et al., Resp’ts, v. Clevenger, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      William B. Ellison, for app’lt; John 8. Davenport, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 127.


text:
    Lombard, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City R. Co., App’lt.

      Matthew Hale, for app’lt; Isaac M. Hopper, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Gray, J.. not sitting. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 904.


text:
    McChesney, Resp’t, v. Panama R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Frederic R. Ooudert, for app’lt; Amasa J. Parlcer, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 418.


text:
    McClain, App’lt, v. Schofield et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Abraham Gruber, for app’lt; J. Mayhew Wainwright, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 47 St. Rep. 238.


text:
    McDermott, App’lt, v. Nassau Electric R. Co., Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 23, 1895.

      E. O. Boardman, for app’lt; John J. Allen, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 66 St. Rep. 202.


text:
    Martin, App’lt, v. Johnston et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1896.

      Austen G. Fox, for app’lt; Thos. J. Keighcvrn, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.


text:
    Mayor, etc., of City of New York, Resp’t, v. New Tore Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Henry H. Anderson, for app’lts; ü. J. Dean, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of general term. All concur, except Finch, J., not sitting. Aff’g 95 St. Rep. 383.


text:
    Moffett, Hodgkins & Clark Co., Resp’ts, v. Peoria Water Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except O’Brien, J„, not voting, Vann, J., not sitting. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 410.


text:
    Murray, Resp’t, v. Great Western Ins. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Treadwell Gleveland, for app’lt; George O. Holt, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 748.


text:
    Neddo, App’lt, v. Village of Ticonderoga, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Francis A. Smith, for app’lt;. Chester B. McLamghlin, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 60 St. Rep. 344.


text:
    Nugent, App’lt, v. Atlas Steamship Co., Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Charles Francis Bates and John Chetwood, for app’lt; Everett P. Wheeler, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Finch, Cray, O’Brien, and Haight, JJ., concur; Andrews, C. J., and Pbckham and Bartlett, JJ., dissent. Aff’g 40 St. Rep. 927.


text:
    People, App’lt, v. Bankers’ Loan & Investment Co., Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion to amend order granted.


text:
    People, Resp’t, v. Doxtater, App'lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.

      John Lansing, for app’lt; Virgil K. Kellogg, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs; on opinion in general term. All concur, except O’Brien, J., not sitting. Aff’g 57 St. Rep. 359.


text:
    People ex rel. American Axe & Tool Co., App’lt, v. Roberts, Comptroller, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Frederic <7. Bow, for app’lt; T. E. Hancock, atty.-gen., for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 574.


text:
    People ex rel. Criscolla, Resp’t, v. Adams, Treasurer of Kings County, App’lt. People ex rel. Johnson, App’lt, v. Same, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      J. Edward Swanstrom, for relators; Gem'ge F. Elliott, for def’t Adams.
   No opinion. Order reversed as to Criscolla, and appeal dismissed as to Johnson, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 70 St. Rep. 512.


text:
    People ex rel. Dexter, App’lt, v. Palmer et al., Assessors of Town of Waverly, Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      John P. Badger, for app’lt; John P. Kellas, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 67 St. Rep. 701.


text:
    People ex rel. Knickerbocker Press, App’lt, v. Barker et al., Commissioners, Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Everett P. Wheeler, for app’lt; B. J. Bean, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 68 St. Rep. 149.


text:
    People ex rel. Redfield, App’lt, v. Murray et al., Commissioners, Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Bobert L. Bedfteld, for app’lt; Gibson Putzel, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 68 St. Rep. 383.


text:
    People ex rel. Schaeffler, Resp’t, v. Barker et al., Commissioners, App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Bamid J. Bean, for app’lts; Frank Schaeffler, in pro. per.

   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 67 St. Rep. 728.


text:
    People ex rel. Smith, Resp’t, v. Wurster, Fire Commissioner, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Howard, 0. Wood, for app’lt; Edwa/rd F. O'Bwyer, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 69 St. Rep. 443.


text:
    People ex rel. Upson, App’lt, v. Webster, Superintendent, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      H. B. Halloek, for app’lt; Howard H. Widener, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, on opinion below, with costs. All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 61 St. Rep. 158.


text:
    People ex rel. Western New York & P. R. Co. et al., Resp’ts, v. Adams et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.

      A. J. Bodenbeck, for app’lts; Charles J. Bissell, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 68 St. Rep. 643.


text:
    People’s Trust Co. v. Smith et al.

    Ct. Ap.,
    December 3, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to amend remittitur granted.


text:
    People’s Trust Co., App’lt, v. Smith et al., Resp’ts; Presbyterian Home for Aged Women, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 8, 1895.

      George W. Wingate and A. B. Byett, for app’lts; J. Warren Greene, John M, Shedd and W. F. Banning, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 134.


text:
    Perkins, Resp’t, v. Bennett, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      John Townshend, for app’lt; Joseph Fitch, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 68 St. Rep. 878.


text:
    Pettee, Resp’t, v. Pettee, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Francis A, Smith, for app’lt; Chester B. McLaughlin, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except O’Brien., J., not voting. Aff’g 60 St. Rep. 529.


text:
    Price, Resp’t, v. Ga Nun et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 15, 1895.

      Brainard Tolies, for the motion; George B. Beattys, opposed.
   No opinion. Ordered: If defendants pay plaintiff’s attorney the ordinary costs of appeal to this court on or before the 18th day of October, 1895, the order dismissing the appeal herein is vacated, and defendants are at liberty to file return with the clerk of this court on or before October 25, 1895, nunc pro tuna as of the time default was made in filing same. If costs are not paid as above required, this motion is denied, with $10 costs. Aff’g 66 St. Rep. 184.


text:
    Redner, Resp’t, v. Lehigh & H. R. Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Isaac H. Maynard, for app’lt; John M. Gardner, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 230.


text:
    Robinson, App’lt, v. Passavant et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 1, 1895.

      Gha/i'les Be Han't Brower, for app’lts; Charles F. Hughes, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of general term. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 875.


text:
    Rottenberg, Resp’t, v. Segelke, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      A. H. Weller, for app’lt; Max Klein, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.


text:
    Schierloh, Resp’t, v. Schierloh, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1896.

      Geo. H. Teaman, for the motion; Geo. W. Boderick, opposed. _
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied.


text:
    Schuyler, Resp’t, v. Curtis et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 14, 1896.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, without costs.


text:
    Seaboard Nat. Bank, Resp’t, v. Burleigh et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 26, 1895.

      Chester B. McLaughlin, for app’lts; Herman Aaron, for resp’t.
   Wo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 57 St. Rep. 247.


text:
    Shepard, Resp’t, v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al., Def’ts; Western Union Tel. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 8, 1895.

      Brainard lolles, for app’lt; William G. Peakham, for resp’t.
   Wo opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Pegram v. Railway Co., infra. All concur, except G-ray, J., taking no part. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 173.


text:
    Shepard, Resp’t, v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al., Def’ts; Western Union Tel. Co., App'lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Brainard Tolies, for the motion; John Be Witt Warmer and W. G. Peckham, opposed.
   Wo opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    Shepard et al., Resp’ts, v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Brainard Tolies, for app’lts; B. W. Tyler, for resp’ts.
   Wo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 64 St. Rep. 873.


text:
    Sisco, Resp’t, v. Lehigh & H. R. Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.
   Wo opinion. Motion for duplicate remittitur granted.


text:
    Matter of Smith et al.

    Ct. Ap.,
    January 28, 1895.
   Wo opinion. Motion to put on calendar denied, without costs.


text:
    Smith, Resp’t, v. Buffalo R. & P. R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Henry G. Bamforth, for app’lt; B. F. Babcock, for resp’t.
   Wo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting. Aff’g 55 St. Rep. 223.


text:
    Smithers, Resp’t, v. Steiner, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 15, 1895.
   Wo opinion. Motion to prefer denied, without costs.


text:
    Matter of Taylor et al.

    Ct. Ap.,
    November 1, 1895.

      Henry Mayor, for app’lt; George B. Ashley, for resp’ts.
   Wo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 49 St. Rep. 644.


text:
    Thompson, App’lt, v. Stanley et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    November 1, 1895.

      Ladislas Karrge, for app’lt; Frederick Seymour, for resp’ts.
   Wo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs; on opinion below. All concur. Aff’g 56 St. Rep. 139.


text:
    Thomson et al., App’lts, v. De Camp et al., Resp’ts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Gharries B. Snyder, for app’lts; O. B. Adams, for resp’ts.
   Wo opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. ' All concur. Aff’g 67 St. Rep. 193.


text:
    Toomey, Resp’t, v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Hamilton Odell, for app’lt; J. Aspinwall Hodge, Jr., for resp’t.
   Wo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All. concur. Aff’g 53 St. Rep. 567.


text:
    Town of Westchester, App’lt, v. Haffen et al., Resp’ts. Village of Williamsbridge, App’lt, v. Haffen et al., Resp’ts. People ex rel. Field, App’lt, v. Board of Aldermen of City of New York, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 8, 1895.
   Wo opinion. These cases presented the same questions as, and were argued and decided with, People v. Board of Sup’rs of Westchester County, 147 N. Y. 1. Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. All concur.


text:
    United Glass Co., App’lt, v. Sleight, Resp’t.
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 22, 1895.

      Charles S. Kent, for app’lt; Horace McGuire, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs. Aff’g 66 St. Rep.


text:
    Vietor et al., Resp’ts, v. Levy et al., App’lts.
    Ct. Ap.,
    January 21, 1896.

      Nathaniel Myers, for app’lts; Alex. Blumenstiel, for resp’ts.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 55 St Rep. 730.


text:
    Matter of Whitney’s Will.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 10, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to put on calendar denied, without costs.


text:
    Wienke, Resp’t, v. Village of North Tonawanda, App’lt.
    Ct. Ap.,
    December 19, 1895.

      Tracy G. Becker, for app’lt; W. B. Bimson, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Haight, J., not voting. Aff’g 48 St. Rep. 147.


text:
    Williams, Resp’t, v. United States Mut. Acc. Ass’n of City of New York, App’lt
    Ct. Ap.,
    October 8, 1895.

      Bialm'd L. Hand, for app’lt; Edgar T. Brackett, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Aff’g 63 St. Rep. 793.


text:
    Lewis H. Allen, Resp’t, v. John C. Matthas et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    Lena M. Alden, Resp’t, v. Miller et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    American Distributing Company, App’lt, v. Edward W. Ashley, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Matter of Anderson et al.

    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to confirm report denied.


text:
    Henry S. Anderson v. Edward P. Dickinson.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order amended, and, as amended, herewith handed to and entered by the clerk of this court.


text:
    G. Benton Anthony, App’lt, v. Bayard T. Biddlecome, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed.


text:
    Oliver M. Arkenbergh, Resp’t, v. Robert H. Arkenbergh, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Oliver M. Arkenburgh, Resp’t, v. Robert H. Arkenburgh, App'lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.


text:
    Allen J. Arnold et al. v. James Fee et al.

    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for the requisite certificate to enable the plaintiffs to appeal from interlocutory judgment to the court of appeals granted. ,


text:
    Matter of Auburn City Railway Company.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion granted and commissioners appointed.


text:
    Matter of Auburn City Railway Company.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Report of the commissioners confirmed.


text:
    Ayers, Resp’t, v. Rochester Railway Company, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Bradley, J., not voting*


text:
    Matter of Baiseley.
    Sup. Ct., 2 D.
    March 5, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, on the opinion of the county judge. All concur, except Cullen, J., not sitting.


text:
    Bank of America, Resp’t, v. East River Silk Company, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $ 10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Bank of British North America v. Boyle, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct.. 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order reversed with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted upon payment of costs and disbursements of action subsequent to answer.


text:
    Mandeville J. Barber et al., v. Mary K. Lancy.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.


text:
    John C. Barnard, Resp’t, v. George C. Brown, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Joseph A. Barr, Resp’t, v. Henry L. Fish et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument or for leave to go to the court of appeals denied.


text:
    William A. Barwick, Resp’t, v. Edger W. Youmans, App’lt.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
   Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.

Per Curiam.—As the question .which is decisive of this case will be presented to the court of appeals upon another appeal, to which this appellant is a party, we think that the present motion should be granted, to prevent a possible injustice which may arise if the court of appeals should differ from this court in its conclusions.


text:
    Batavia Bank, Resp’t, v. Alfred A. Freeman et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment modified so as to allow costs to receiver, and affirmed as modified, without costs of appeal.


text:
    George E. Beardsley, App’lt, v. Willis G. Pope, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 3 D.
    September 27, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for leave to go to the court of appeals denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    Charles F. Becker v New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial denied, and judgment directed for the defendant on the verdict.


text:
    Edward Beers et al., Resp’ts, v. North American Rubber Co., App’lt.
    N. Y. C. C.
    October 29, 1895.
   No opinion: Order affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Ella G. Bentley et al., Resp’ts, v. Schuyler C. Wells, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    Herman D. Berner v. Solomon L. Kaye.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the court Oí appeals denied.


text:
    J. Christ Bernhardt et al., Resp’ts, v. Lewis A. Dell, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Fred. C. Biggs et al., Resp’ts, v. Homer W. Rightmeyer et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    July Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed.


text:
    Binghamton Trust Co., App’lt, v. Abija Weston et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    Robert F. Bixby v. Casino Co.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals granted.


text:
    Caroline L. Boehm, Resp’t, v. Commercial Life Ins. Co. of New York, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Boston & P. Dispatch Express Co. v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
    Motion for a reargument.
   Per Curiam.

No ground is presented upon this motion for which, within the provisions of rule 16 of the general term pf this court, a reargument of the appeal may be had. The position of the witness Miller when he saw the accident, the opinion of officer Lake as to the manner in which the plaintiff’s driver was driving, the testimony of the driver that he looked up and down the track, and the fact that part of the wagon was upon the outer rail at the time of the collision, are not decisive of the case. In considering the appeal from a district court, we are not concluded by the absence of a motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the testimony. Motion denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    Robert Boyd, Resp’t, v. New York El. Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Jacob Brinkerhoff et al., App’lts, v. Amarilla A. Sartwell et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   _ No opinion. Judgment affirmed, on opinon of Bradley, J., in Brinkerhoff v. Sartwell.


text:
    Mary S. Brooks, Resp’t, v. Rochester Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


text:
    M. Fillmore Brown, Resp’t, v. Root, App’lt,
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order so modified as to permit the judgment of dismissal merely of complaint to remain of record,- iu other respects, and as so modified, affirmed, without prejudice to the right of the defendant, Root, to move at special term for costs of the action. No costs of this appeal to either party.


text:
    George C. Buell et al., Resp’ts, v. James Mingo et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment modified by striking out the direction of the new trial, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs. .


text:
    Canandaigua Waterworks Co., App’lt, v. Village of Canandaigua et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Carey, Resp’t, v. New York El. Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment modified, by reducing fee damage to $4,300, and rental damage to $2,000, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.


text:
    Elizabeth Carman, App’lt, v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed.


text:
    Willard E. Case, App’lt, v. County of Cayuga, et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinon. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Samuel Caskel, Resp’t, v. Maier Rothschild et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    David D. Clancey, Resp’t, v. Thomas H. Groves, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    Edward K. Clark, App’lt, v. City of Binghamton et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 4D.
    February Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Held, that the plaintiff’s qualified assent to the paper signed by the other property owners on Front street did not operate as a dedication of the plaintiff’s property that was within the lines of the proposed addition to such street.


text:
    Phoebe J. Colby, App’lt, v. Edward Colby et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs.


text:
    Phoebe J. Colby v. Edward J. Colby.
    Sup. Ct., 5D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion granted.


text:
    Lydia Cole, App’lt, v. Kate C. Brown et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Werner, J., not sitting.


text:
    Frederick L. Colwell, App’lt, v. Genevieve R. Colwell, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.

      E. G. James, for app’lt; JR. 3. JMJcGh'ath, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

—The allowance for alimony and costs made by the special term we regard as excessive. The order should be modified so as to award to the defendant $50 a month for alimony, $200 for alimony prior to May 8, 1895, and $100 for counsel fee. Order modified accordingly, and affirmed as modified, without costs.


text:
    Frederick L. Colwell, v. Genevieve R. Colwell.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion granted.


text:
    George Cooper, Pl'ff, v. William H. Gorsline et al., Def’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for a new trial denied, and judgment directed for the defendants on the nonsuit.


text:
    William A. Copp, App’It, v. Home Ins. Co., Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.

      Thomas J. JRiteh, Jr., for app’lt; George Richards, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The facts are undisputed, and from them it appears that the dwelling house which the defendant insured was vacant and unoccupied for a period of more than ten days prior to its burning. A clause in the policy of insurance upon Which this action is founded provided that in such event the policy shall be void. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Nathan Corwith et al., App’lts, v. Frederick W. Stetler et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.

      Aldaee F. Walker, for app’lts ; Elijah S. Coróles, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

October 5, 1888, the five car loads of lead in question reached the station of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company at Hoboken, which corporation had brought it from the west. It is conceded that, when the lead arrived, it was owned by Nathan Corwith & Co. The only question presented on this appeal is one of fact: Was Gurden Corwith authorized by Nathan Corwith & Co. to sell the lead ? The learned trial court found this issue of fact in favor of the defendants, and upon evidence which permits no other answer to the question. The senior member of the firm of Nathan Corwith & Co was in the city of New York. The firm received the usual notice of the arrival of the lead,' and turned that notice over to Gurden Cor-with, who had long acted as the broker of the firm. The evidence shows that he had on many occasions stored lead and received warehouse receipts in his own name, and sold the lead. In regard to this particular shipment, the evidence justifies Jhe conclusion that Nathan Corwith & Co. authorized this very disposition to tie made of this lead. None of the appellants established any legal or equitable claim to the property. None of the rulings of the learned trial judge upon the admission or exclusion of evidence are challenged, and no question was argued at the bar of this court or upon the briefs of counsel, except this single question of fact, which was well decided. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.


text:
    County of Monroe, v. City of Rochester.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to .amend order so as to read, “ The judgment of the special term was reversed, for errors of fact as well as errors of law,” granted.


text:
    Charles W. Crossman et al., Resp’ts, v. David B. Lochner, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    John W. Cullis, Resp’t, v. Allen G. Smith et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ward, J.„ not sitting.


text:
    Richard Cussack, Resp't, v. Homer W. Rightmeyer et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 4D.
    July Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed.


text:
    Chester L. Dalrymple, Resp’t, v. Albert C. Parker, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    February Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Held, that whether there was a warranty was a question for the jury.


text:
    Henry M. Davis, App’lt, v. Benjamin, Aiken, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to amend memorandum decision so as to read, “ Judgment of the county court reversed, and that of the justice affirmed,” granted.


text:
    Levy S. Davis, Resp’t, v. John T. Noye Manuf’g Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    James E. Delehanty, Resp’t, v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Matter of Department of Public Parks.
    Sup. Ct., ID.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Application denied.


text:
    John E. Devlin, Resp’t, v. New York El. Ry. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Arthur M. Dodge et al., App’lts, v. Jessie McKechnie, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Hampton Dodge, Resp’t, v. Henry Weill, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    John Draper, Resp’t, v. Matthew McDonough, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    John Duffy, Sr., App’lt, v. Joseph Hamilton, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    East River Gas Co. of Long Island, Resp’t, v. John F. Ahern, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    Edwin A. Eaton, Pl’ff, v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., Def’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial granted; costs to abide the event


text:
    John M. Eddy, App’lt, v. Milo A. Briggs, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


author: _ Per Curiam.

text:
    Emily A. Emerson, App’lt, v. Jessie M. Emerson, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
    Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for an allowance for counsel fees, to resist a motion made by defendant for a reduction of alimony.

      Edward G. Black, for app’lt; Charles J. Hardy, for resp’t.
   _ Per Curiam.

Even if the court could entertain this motion, our examina_ tion of the record leads to the conclusion that the discretion of the special term was not improperly exercised in refusing to allow a counsel fee to the plaintiff, to he employed in securing counsel to oppose defendant’s motion. The order should he affirmed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements.


text:
    Robert Ferguson, Resp’t, v. Perfection Thermometer, etc., Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    First Nat. Bank of Jersey City, Resp’t, v. George W. Martin, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Maria Geis et al., Resp’ts, v. New York El. Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment modified by reducing fée damage to $5,000, and . rental damage to $3,500, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.


text:
    Geneva & W. Ry. Co., Resp’t, v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Geneva & W. Ry. Co., Resp’t, v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order modified by adding thereto a clause to the effect that the manner of crossing shall be determined by the commissioners as provided by the statute, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbbursements. Daly, J., not sitting.


author: Fitzsimons, J.

text:
    George, Resp’t, v. Alexe et al., App’lts.
    N. Y. C. C.
    November 26, 1895.

      George B. Ashley, for app’lts; 'George Treifeld, for resp’t.
   Fitzsimons, J.

— The issues presented by the allegation contained in the “first defense” are clear and unmistakable, and, if sustained, are sufficient to defeat the plaintiff herein. As to the “second defense,” so called in the answer, I am unable to find therein any defense to this cause of action, except that part of “seventh” paragraph which alleges “ that the notes in suit were procured from defendant without consideration.” This is simply a repetition of the first defense in substance, and is therefore redundant matter, and all the other matters set forth are clearly irrelevant to the issues herein, and have no legal merit; so that the order appealed from was properly made, and is affirmed, with costs.


text:
    German-American Bank of Tonawanda, Resp’t, v. Daly, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    July, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed,


text:
    German Vici Co., App’lt, v. Krause, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    February Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Gernstein, Resp’t, v. Fisher, App’lt.
    N. Y. Sup. Ct.
    October 24, 1895.
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to serve a supplemental answir, defendant appeals.

      Oscar R. Bogart, for app’lt; Louis Steckler, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

— The order appealed from should be affirmed on the opinion filed by the learned judge below. In view of the decisions in Collins v. Hydorn, 135 N. Y. 330, and Furlong v. Ranta, 80 Hun, 248, the case of Anderson v. Railroad Co., 9 Daly, 487, cannot be followed, and the decision of Feather-son v. Turnpike Co., has no application. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Gilbert, App’lt, v. Noble et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Gleason, Resp’t, v. Thorn et al., Appl’ts.
    N. Y. C. C.
    October 29, 1895.

      Dmis, Short and Townsend, for appl’l; L. J. Morrison, for resp’t.
   Fitzsimons, J.

— The answer alleges that the books in question were to be bound in a good quality of leather. That allegation is specifically referred to because it is quite apparent from the record that the leather used in the covering the books was the main cause of this litigation. Therefore, it seems to us that, if the evidence shows that the leather so used was good, the judgment should stand. All through the case we find the usual conflict of testimony. On plaintiff’s behalf it is claimed that the contract was fully performed. On defendants’ side the contrary is claimed, but the defendants’ witnesses apparently were not good judges of leather, and their evidence seems to rest mainly on their fancy; their testimony, in substance, being that they did not like the leather as much as the sample, and, in their opinion, it was not the same. Evidently, their opinion was not entitled to as much credibility or 'weight as was the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, who are experienced men; and the jury were justified in so finding. It seems to us that no error was committed, and that the judgment must be affirmed with costs. McCarty, J., concurs.


text:
    Goldstein v. Bush.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.


text:
    Graham v. Graham (two cases).
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Motions denied.


text:
    Green App’lt, v. Middlesex Valley R. Co., Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Ward, J., not voting.


text:
    Dorah E. Grubert, App’lt, v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., Resp’t.
    Sup Ct., 4 D.
    February Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with'costs.


text:
    Samuel E. Guernsey, App’lt. v. Mary N. Guernsey, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Charles Hadden, App’lt, v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Frederick B. Hall, Resp’t, v. Clark Allen et al. Appl’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    William Halliday, Resp’t, v. A. I. Nicholas et al., App’lts.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
    A judgment of the general term of the city court, affirming a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff was reversed, and plaintiff moves for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.
   Per Curiam.

The question of the right of the plaintiff to recover depended upon the construction of an agreement the terms of which were not disputed. The defendants agreed to hold a deposit of checks or money made by a thir.d party until July'15, 1893, and on that day to pay over; but the payment was conditional upon a certain consolidation and issue of bonds specified in another paper. Such consolidation and issue did not take place until the month of August thereafter, and meanwhile the depositor countermanded payment to the plaintiff. We held the plaintiff not entitled to recover. The question of time, being of the essence of the contract, cannot arise in this case as between the depositories and the plaintiff. As between them, the plaintiff, if entitled to the money at all, was entitled to it on July 15th, that being the agreement; but, as the condition was not fulfilled, he was not entitled, and cannot recover, there being no other enforceable agreement of the defendants. Motion denied, with §10 costs.


text:
    Matter of Hamilton.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Francis J. Hamilton, Resp’t, v. George A. Lee et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.


author: McCarthy, J.

text:
    Charles L. Hammond, Resp’t, v. Eugene Van Schaick, App’lt.
    N. Y. C. C.
    October 25, 1895.

      Cantor & Van Sehaiek, for app’lt; Lamb, Osborn & Petty, for resp’t.
   McCarthy, J.

—This case involved a question of fact, and was correctly submitted to the jury on the law. We find no error, and judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.


text:
    Edward W. Hankins, Resp’t, v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Ward, J., not sitting.


text:
    Michael J. Haugh, Resp’t, v. Jerome Moore et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    John Heerdegen, App’lt, v. American Surety Co. of New York, Resp’t.
    N. Y. C. C.
    October 29, 1895.

      William B. Bronle, for app’lt; B. O. Wilcox, for resp’t.
   McCarthy, J.

The appellant, having stipulated (see orders), must be bound by the same. If there was no stipulation, then these orders should have been resettled, and required to recite the correct facts. We are to pass on the papers as they come to us. Order must be affirmed, with $10 costs. Van Wyck, C. J., concurs.


text:
    Arnold Heerwagen et al., Resp’ts, v. Charles L. Ritzmann, App’lt.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
    Motion for reárgument of appeal.
   Per Curiam.

—- The present motion does not conform to rule 16 of the general term of this court, with regard to motions for reargument? Counsel in effect simply desires to present a more elaborate argument npon the exception which the general term deemed fatal to the judgment, and it does not appear that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked. Motion denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    Otto Heinze et al., Resp’ts, v. Maier Rothschild et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Charles W. Henning et al., App’lts, v. Seymour Bennett et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


text:
    John Herdigen, Resp’t, v. Alexander A. Schnee, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with- $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Maud A. Hertzler, App’lt, v. City of Buffalo, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, Dwight, P. J., not voting.


text:
    Matter of Hoagland, Police Justice.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    February Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Report of referee confirmed, and application denied. Disbursements for stenographer and referee, of $140.90, having been paid by the petitioner, no further costs or expenses are allowed. Papers to be filed, and order entered with the clerk of' Tioga county.


text:
    Mary E. Hoefler v. Mary R. Hoefler.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.


text:
    Albert Hollenbeck, Pl’ff, v. William H. Jones et al., Def’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for new trial denied, and judgment directed for the defendants on the verdict.


text:
    Charles E. Holm, v. Parmele-Eccleston Lumber Co.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs, unless, within five days from the date of service of the order to be entered herein, the appellant shall pay $10 costs, and stipulate that the appeal shall' either be argued, or dismissed if not argued at the next term.


text:
    Almon H. Houghton et al., App’lts, v. Thousand Island Steamboat Co., Limited, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    February, 1895.
   No opinion. The order, so far as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Almon A. Houghton et al., App’lts, v. Thousand Island Steamboat Co., Limited, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    February, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. See preceding case.


author: Feb Curiam.

text:
    Thomas F. Huffington, Resp’t, v. John Farrel et al., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
    Appeal from judgment enteredron verdict, and order denying motion for new trial.

      Thomas Darlington, for app'lts; Charier H. •Knoa),iox resp’t.
   Feb Curiam.

The opinion of the court of appeals delivered on a former appeal, 100 N. Y. 179, required the action taken by the trial judge, and commands an affirmance of the judgment on this review. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Daniel W. Jones, Resp’t, v. John B. Manning et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals granted. Lewis, J., not sitting.


text:
    Sarah Strong, Resp’t, v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


text:
    Matter of Jones Estate. Matter of O’Neil et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct., 1D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Roxanna Kelley, App’lt, v. Mayor, Etc., of City of New York et al., Resp’ts.
    Sup. Ct., 2D.
    July Term, 1895.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion at special term.


text:
    Betsey Ketchum, Resp’t, v. James A. Holden, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 3 D.
    September 27, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument or leave to go to the court of appeals denied, with $10 costs.


text:
    James Kettle, App’lt, v. John Turl et al., Resp’ts.
    N. Y. C. P.
    December 2,1895.
    Motion for reargument of appeal.
   Per Curiam.

The points severally alluded to by the appellant as having been overlooked by the court in its decision of the appeal appear from the opinion to have been duly considered. The case of Chisholm v. State, 141 N. Y. 246; does not limit Weston v. Troy, 139 N. Y. 282; cited in the opinion of the general term, but distinguishes it only, and nowise affects its application to the •case at bar. Motion for reargument denied. No costs.


text:
    Adolph Kleine, Resp’t, v. Mayor, Etc., of City of New York, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.

      T. Connoly, for app’lt; C. ffoldzier, for resp’t.
   No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Randolph Koch et al., v. Charles L. Link et al., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, t


text:
    Berhard Kreizer, App’lt, v. John Allaire et. al., Resp’t.
    N. Y. C. C.,
    October 29, 1895.

      Fromme Bros., for app’lts; Chas. II. Benn, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

The order of the special term justice is affirmed, for the reason that the complaint and other papers used upon this motion, and upon which the order of arrest was granted, disclose no cause of action against defendants. Order affirmed, with costs.


text:
    Johanna Kuchenmeister, v. Vernon H. Brown et al.

    N. Y. C. C.,
    December 2, 1895.
   No opinion. Motion for reargument granted.


text:
    Adolph Ladenberg et al., App’lt, v. Commercial Bank of Newfoundland, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct. 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Henry A. Landgraff, Pl’ff, v. Lancashire Ins. Co., Def't.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    November 15, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    Henry Lange et al., Resp’ts, v. Manhattan Ry. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.
    October 18, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Judgment affilmed, with costs.


text:
    Thomas Larkin, v. Village of Brockport.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    October 16, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Motion denied.


text:
    Joseph Lefrois, Resp’t, v. Monroe County, App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.


text:
    John Lowden, Resp’t, v. Martin Beattie, app’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    March Term, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


text:
    Bryan McAveney, App’lt, v. Thomas H. Brush et al., Resp’ts.
    N. Y. C. P.,
    December 2, 1895.
    Motion for reargument of appeal.
   Per Curiam.

As the adjudication that the defendant was in contempt was-made at the general term upon appeal from an order holding otherwise for legal reasons, and the fine was imposed at the general term, we will allow a reargument upon the facts. Motion granted, without costs.


text:
    Frank McClanathan et al., Resp’t, v. Friedel et al., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    February Term, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with 'costs to abide the event. ’


text:
    Nancy McConnell, Resp’t, v. National Life Association of Hartford, Conn., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 5 D.
    June Term, 1895.
   Ho opinion. Judgment and order affirmed.


author: Van Wyck, J.

text:
    Richard McCormack, App’lt, v. City of Brooklyn, Resp’t.
    B. C. C.,
    November 25, 1895.

      Pickett & Quintan'd, for app’lt; Albert G. McDonald, for resp’t.
   Van Wyck, J.

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint, and he and Ms witnesses testify, that defendant suffered a loose flagstone to remain upon the-flagged part of the sidewalk, and that plaintiff, while walking along such flagged portion, stumbled over this loose flag resting thereupon. The testimony of defendant’s witnesses was to the effect that no such loose flagstone-rested upon or projected over the flagged part of the walk. If this latter version be true, then the former cannot be; and we think the court properly instructed the jury that, unless the loose flag rested upon or projected over the flagged part of the walk, the plaintiff cannot recover. We find no ruling to-which an exception was taken which was harmful to plaintiff. The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.