網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

In re SCHMIDT. (Supreme Court, Appel-1 SHAW, Appellant, v. UNION BAG & PAlate Division, Second Department. November PER CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Apmata * 13, 1903.) In the matter of the appraisal of the pellate Division, Third Department. November

Anna M Schmidtdeceased. under 11, 1903.) Action by Jack Shaw against the acts relating to the taxable transfers of prop-Union Bag & Paper Company. erty. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 PER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with costs and disbursements.

costs.
SCHMIEG, Respondent, v. UNION RY. CO., CHASE, J., dissents.
Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department. November 20, 1903.) AC-

SHEEHY, Respondent, V. MANHATTAN tion by Elizabeth Schmieg, as administratrix,

RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appelagainst the Union Railway Company of New

| late Division, First Department. November 6, York City. C. F. Brown, for appellant. M. O.

| 1903.) Action by Frank P. Sheehy against the Heine, for respondent.

Manhattan Railway Company. A. 0. TownPER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm

send, for appellant. E. M. Felt, for responded, with costs.

ent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10

costs and disbursements. VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, J., dissent.

SHOULETTE, Appellant, v. TOWN OF

ROSSIE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, AppelSCHNURR. Appellant. y. QUINN. Respond-/ late Division, Third Department. November ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec

11, 1903.) Action by Maria Shoulette against ond Department. November 13, 1903.) Action the town of Rossie. No opinion. Judgment by Tilly Schnurr against Alexander Quinn.

unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Reargument ordered for Monday, November 23, 1903.

SILBER, Respondent, v. ERICSON, Appel

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. “NoSCHRIEBER, Respondent, v. TILYOU, Ap vember 6, 1903.) Action by Mendle Silber pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, I against Hjalmer Ericson. From a judgment First Department. October 23. 1903.) Action for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. by Albert Schrieber against George Tilyou. Frayer, White & Seaman, for appellant. JaH. E. Heistad, for appellant. N. J. O'Connell,

coves & Mullen, for respondent. for respondent. No opinion, Judgment and or-1 BLANCHARD, J. As the action was not der affirmed, with costs.

brought by the real party in interest, and the

finding of the trial court is clearly against not SCHU, Respondent, v. HUNTER ARMS only the weight of evidence, but the evidence, CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial vision, Fourth Department. November 17, ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the 1903.) Action by Frank N. Schu against the event. All concur. Hunter Arms Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

SILVER, Respondent, v. WILLIAMS et al.,

Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviSCHULSINGER, Appellant, v. BLAU et al., sion, Second Department. November 20, 1903.) Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-Action by Sam Silver against Thomas M. Wilsion, First Department. October 16, 1903.) liams and others. No opinion. Judgment of the Action by Dora Schulsinger against Carrie Blau

Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

SILVERNAIL, Respondent, v. METROPOL

|ITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, SCHUTZ, Respondent, v. UNION RY. CO., | Appellate Term. November 18, 1003.) Action Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | by Agnes Silvernail against the Metropolitan sion, Second Department. November 13, 1903.) | Street Railway Company. From an order setAction by Friedrich Otto Schutz against the ting aside a verdict and judgment for defendant, Union Railway Company of New York City. and granting a new trial to plaintiff on the

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm-ground of newly discovered evidence, defended, with costs.

ant appeals. Affirmed. Henry A. Robinson (F. WOODWARD, J., dissents.

A. Gaynor, of counsel), for appellant. Watts

& Merrill, for respondent. SELLECK, Respondent, V. GRAY, Appel- PER CURIAM. The order appealed from lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, was made in the exercise of a sound discretion Third Department. November 11, 1903.) AC- and in furtherance of justice, and upon the tion by Daniel P. Selleck against Byron Gray. authority of Klinger v. Markowitz, 54 App. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Div. 299, 65 N. Y. Supp. 369, 66 N. Y. Supp.

1135, and Serwer v. Serwer, 71 App. Div. 415, In re SEWARD. (Supreme Court, Appellate 75 N, Y. Supp. 842, it must be affirmed, with Division, Third Department. November 11, costs and disbursements. 1903.) In the matter of proving the last will and testament of John W. Seward, deceased. In re SIMONDS FURNACE CO. (Supreme No opinion. Decree of the surrogate unani- | Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. mously affirmed, with costs.

November 13, 1903.) In the matter of the and 118 New York State Reporter application of a majority of the directors of under the circumstances, it must not be assumed the Simonds Furnace Company for a dissolu- | that the Court of Appeals by said decision intion. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 tended to award plaintiff, if successful upon a costs.

Irew trial, costs upon the first appeal to this

court, which had been expressly withheld by the SIRE, Appellant, v. SHUBERT et al., Re

decision of this court upon said appeal. spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

STQVER, J., not voting. First Department. November 20, 1903.) ACtion by Henry S. Sire against Samuel S. Shu

SMITH, Respondent, v. UTICA KNITTING bert and others. F. Bien, for appellant. W.

CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiKlein, for respondents. No opinion. Order af vision, Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Action by George C. Smith, as administrator,

against the Utica Knitting Company. SKINNER, Respondent, V. FIELD, et al., PER CURIAM, Judgment and order reversAppellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-ed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the sion, Fourth Department. November 17, 1903.) | appellant to abide event, upon questions of law Action by Henry J. Skinner against Edgar K. only, the facts having been examined and no Field and another. No opinion. Judgment af- error found therein, upon the ground that the firmed, with costs.

evidence does not show that plaintiff's intestate

was free from contributory negligence, and the In re SMITH. (Supreme Court, Appellate

further ground that the plaintiff's intestate as

enye sumed the risk. Division, Second Department. November 13, 1903.) In the matter of Samuel B. Smith, as WILLIAMS and NASH, JJ., vote for rereceiver, etc., of Count W. Weeks, and another. versal upon the law and the facts, upon the No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and ground that the finding of the jury that there disbursements.

was absence of contributory negligence was con

trary to the evidence, and the finding that the SMITH V. HERTER. (Supreme Court, Ap

defendant was guilty of negligence was con

trary to the evidence, because the defendant, pellate Division, First Department. October 23, 1903.) Action by Edward Smith against

under the circumstances of the case, owed the

intestate no duty to have its elevator in difMaria A. Herter. No opinion. Motion denied,

ferent condition from what it was; he having upon payment of $10 costs, and, upon payment

assumed the risk thereof. of an additional $10, leave given to apply to the

STOVER, J., not voting. court below to open default. SMITH, Appellant, v. HUDSON VALLEY

| In re SNEDEKER. (Supreme Court, AppelRY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel

late Division, Second Department. November late Division, Third Department. November 11,

1 13, 1903.) In the matter of the accounting by 1903.) Action by Kittie F. Smith against the

Ada May Snedeker, administratrix of the goods, Hudson Valley Railway Company. No opinion.

chattels, and credits of Charles Snedeker, de Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

ceased.

PER CURIAM. We think that this proceedSMITH, Respondent, v. LEHIGH VALLEY ing was not a trial within the meaning of secR. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate tion 2576 of the Code, and that therefore the Division. Fourth Department. October 27, | appeal book may be ordered on file upon the 1903.) Action by Porter D. Smith, as adminis- stipulation of the attorneys. trator, against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

SNOWDEN, Respondent, v. TOWN OF PER CURIAM. Order reversed, without

SOMERSET, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apcosts of this appeal to either party. Motion

pellate Division, Fourth Department. Novemfor retaxation of costs granted by disallowing

ber 24, 1903.) Action by Sarah J. Snowden costs taxed by plaintiff upon and of the first

against the town of Somerset. appeal to this court, with $10 costs of said PER CURIAM. Judgment and order remotion; otherwise, said motion is denied. versed, and new trial ordered, with costs to Held, that the decision and judgment of this the appellant to abide event, upon questions of court upon the first appeal, reducing plaintiff's law only; the facts having been examined and recovery, was not intended to, and did not, de- no error found therein. Held, that it was inprive him of the costs awarded for and upon competent to allow the plaintiff's witness, the first trial; also held, that the decision and Sprague, to testify to declarations made to him judgment of this court upon said first appeal by the plaintiff, long after the accident. id that the judgment of the court below, as modi- regard to the manner in which she attempted fied. be "aflirmed, without costs," was not in- to get out of the wagon and received her injutended to, and did not, deprive plaintiff of the ries; also held, that it was error for the trial costs awarded in the court below, but related justice to charge the jury in effect that it was a simply to the costs upon said appeal to this matter of very little importance for them to court; also held, that the decision of the Court determine just what plaintiff's injury was, or of Appeals that the judgment recovered upon what the precise nature of the latter was. the first trial be reversed, "with costs to abidel McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, J., disthe event," entitled plaintiff to tax costs in sent upon the ground that the errors were not said Court of Appeals, and also those recovered of sufficient importance to require the granting in Supreme Court upon the first trial, and that, 'of a new trial.

SOMMER, Appellant, v. SOMMER et al., 1 pellant. T. Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | Order aflirmed, with $10 costs and disburse sion, First Department. November 13, 1903.) | ments. Action by Helena Sommer against Frederick W. Sommer and others. No opinion. Motion denied.

STEIN et al. V. MARKS et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.) Action by Charles Stein SPECTOR, Respondent, v. SAMUELS, Ap and others against Michael Marks and others. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, B. Patterson, for appellants. N. Burkan, for Second Department. November 20, 1903.) respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with Action by Charles Spector against Aaron Sam $10 costs and disbursements. uels. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, by default, with costs.

STEMMLER et al., Appellants, V. MAYOR,

ETC., OF NEW YORK, Respondents. (SuSPENCER v. TOWN OF SARDINIA. (Su preme Court, Appellate Division, First Departpreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De- ment. November 6, 1903.) Action by Theopartment. November 24, 1903.) Action by

dore W. Stemmler and others against the Ella D. Spencer against the town of Sardinia. mayor, etc., of New York. D. McCurdy, for No opinion. Motion to amend order, dated July appellants. T. Farley, for respondents. No 7, 1903, allowing an appeal from the judgment opinion, Judgment and order affirmed, with and order of this court to the Court of Ap-costs. peals, granted, and said order is amended by adding thereto: "And this court hereby certifies STERLING et al. v. MURRAY et al. (Suthat in its opinion a question of law is in preme Court, Appellate Division, First Departvolved in this case which ought to be reviewed ment. November 6, 1903.) Action by John by the Court of Appeals."

W. Sterling and others against Henry Murray

and others. No opinion. Motion denied, upon SPRINGER, Appellant, v. FUCHS & LANG

payment of $10 costs, and, upon payment of an MFG. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap additional $10, leave given to apply to the pellate Division, First Department. October 23,

court below to open default. 1903.) Action by John H. Springer, as receiver, against the Fuchs & Lang Manufacturing Com In re STILES. (Supreme Court, Appellate pany. E. Crandall, for appellant. J. E. Lud

Division, Third Department. December 3. den, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment af 1903.) In the matter of the proceedings to firmed, with costs.

disbar Esmond Stiles, an attorney. No opinion.

Ordered that Hon. Samuel Edwards, of Hudson, STANDARD TRUST CO., Respondent, v. N. Y., be appointed referee to take testimony NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., et al., and report to the court, with his opinion thereAppellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- on. sion, Second Department. November 13, 1903.) Action by the Standard Trust Company, as executor, etc., of Alfred M. Perrin, deceased,

STONE, Respondent, v. CRONIN, Appelagainst the New York Central & Hudson River

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SecRailroad Company and others. No opinion.

ond Department. November 13, 1903.) Action Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with

by Medad E. Stone, as administrator, etc., costs; GOODRICH, P. J., being of opinion,

against Bridget Cronin, individually, etc. No however, that the verdict is excessive.

opinion. Motion denied, with leave to renew at

the next term, unless the case is then in readiSTANTON, Respondent, v. LUDWIG, Ap

ness for argument. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) AC

STRAUS et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN tion by Mary D. Stanton against Charles Lud

PUBLISHERS' ASS'N et al., Respondents. wig. No opinion. Judgment and order aflirm

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Deed, with costs. The form of the order to be

partment. October 23, 1903.) Action by Isidor settled by and before Mr. Justice HISCOCK

Straus and others against the American Pubon two days' notice.

lishers' Association and others. No opinion. Motion granted. Question to be certified to

Court of Appeals: "Are the facts stated in the STATE BANK, Respondent, V. SILBER

complaint in this action sufficient to constitute MAN et al.. Appellants. (Supreme Court, Ap-l a cause of action?" pellate Division, First Department. November 6, 1903.) Action by the State Bank against STRAUSS, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN Rosie Silberman and others. N. Alienikoff, for | HEIGHTS R. CO., Respo appellants. B. N. Cardozo, for respondent. No Court, Appellate Term. November 18, 1903.) opinion, Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Action by Jacob Strauss against the Brooklyn

Heights Railroad Company. From a judgment STEARNS, Appellant, v. OPPENHEIM, Re- for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. spondent, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- Charles M. Rosenthal, for appellant. H vision, First Department. October 23, 1903.) Ives, for respondent. Action by George A. Stearns against Adolph BISCHOFF, J. The case was submitted to Oppenheim, impleaded. G. A. Stearns, for ap- the trial justice for decision after disagree

[ocr errors]

and 118 New York State Reporter ment of the jury, and his conclusion upon the same case, reported 79 App. Div. 362, 79 N. Y. facts was based necessarily upon his estimate Supp. 1106. of the relative credibility of the witnesses who WILLIAMS, J., dissents. HISCOCK, J., testified before him. There is no inherent im- | not voting. probability in the account of the accident as given by the defendant's witnesses, and the motorman was directly corroborated by a pas

SWEENEY, Respondent, UNITED senger who had a clear view of occurrence.

TRACTION CO., Appellant.' (Supreme Court, Accepting this evidence, the collision was due Appellate Division, Third Department. Novemmainly to the recklessness of the plaintiff's

ber 11, 1903.) Action by Catharine Sweeney servant, and the judgment for the defendant is against the United Traction Company. No unassailable. Judgment affirmed, with costs. opinion. Judgment and order unanimously afAll concur.

firmed, with costs.

STURGIS, Fire Com'r, Appellant, V.

SWIFT, Respondent, v. ASPELL & CO., Ap

pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SPRINGER, Respondent. (Supreme Court,

First Department. November 20, 1903.) ACAppellate Term. June 22, 1903.) Action by

tion by Charles N. Swift against Aspell & Co. Thomas Sturgis, as fire commissioner of the

M. H. Cardozo for appellants. G. L. Carlisle, city of New York, against John H. Springer. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmAffirmed. George L. Rives (Arthur S. Cosby,

ed, with costs. of counsel), for appellant. Truax & Crandall, for respondent.

TANENBAUM, Appellant, V. LIPPMANN PER CURIAM. The plaintiff brought suit

et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate against the defendant to recover statutory pen

Division, First Department. October 16, 1903.) alties for certain violations of section 762 of

Action by Moses Tanenbaum against Gustav the Greater New York Charter (Laws 1897, p.

Lippmann and others. No opinion, Motion 263, c. 378), in that he caused or permitted

granted, so far as it seeks to have stricken from people to stand in the aisles of his theater

the files and records of the court the papers on during a public performance, and neglected or

the denial of plaintiff's motion to prohibit Benno refused to remove them when informed that I Loewy, Esq., appearing against plaintiff, etc. they were there. It is unnecessary to decide

to decide So far as it moves to strike from the calendar whether the parts of the theater where people

the appeal from the other order, motion denied. were alleged, and it was testified, to be standing, were aisles or not, in view of the contradic

THOMPSON, Appellant, V. THOMPSON, tory character of the testimony given by the

Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi numerous witnesses called by either side as to the fact that they were there and standing with

sion, Third Department. November 11, 1903.) out being removed, and the determination of the

Action by May A. Thompson against John R.

Thompson. trial justice thereon. The judgment in favor of the defendant must therefore be affirmed, PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with with costs.

costs.

CHESTER, J., dissents. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. SOUTHARD, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, In re TIFFANY. (Supreme Court, Appellate First Department. November 6, 1903.) Action Division. Fourth Department. November 24, by Julia Sullivan, as administratrix, against

1903.) In the matter of the application of Charles 11. Southard.. NO opinion. Motion Chapin Tiffany for a writ of mandamus. No granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10

opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. costs.

TRINITY CHURCH OF POTSDAM, ReSUTHERLAND, Respondent, v. LASHER, spondent, v. BROWN, Appellant. (Supreme Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. First Department. November 20, 1903.) AC- November 11, 1903.) Action by the Trinity tion by George R. Sutherland against Lewis P. Church of Potsdam, N. Y., against Milton H. Lasher. R. C. Freeman, for appellant. E. Brown. Hassett, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with

n. Order | PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm. $10 costs and disbursements. I ed. with costs. See 84 N. Y. Supp. 56.

HOUGHTON, J., dissents.

SUTTER, Respondent, V. NEW YORK TURNER, Appellant, v. SWARTHOUT, et CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Division, Fourth Department. October 27, November 24, 1903.) Action by Carrie Sutter, 1903.) Action by James S. Turner against as administratrix, etc., against the New York

Jesse Swarthout and another. Central & Hadson River Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of County Court PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm-affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that the ed, with costs, upon authority of decision in plaintiff's conduct in furnishing dinners to the

jurors during the progress of the trial was im- , 426, the order appealed from should be reversproper.

ed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the WILLIAMS, J., concurs in affirmance, but motion to vacate the attachment denied, with not solely upon the ground stated. STOVER, $10 costs. J., not voting.

VANDERBEEK, Appellant, v. COLE, ReUNION BANK OF BROOKLYN, Appel

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, lant, v. CASE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, tion by Samuel H. Vanderbeek against Andrew

ppel- Second Department. November 20, 1903.) ACAppellate Term. November 6, 1903.) Action N Cole No opinion. Judgme

N. Cole. No opinion. Judgment of the Municby the Union Bank of Brooklyn against David K. Case, individually and as trustee. From a

ipal Court affirmed, by default, with costs.

pa judgment for defendant, and from an order

VAN VORST, Respondent, v. REED, Appeldenying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff ap- lant. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division. First peals. Affirmed.

Department. October 16, 1903.) Action by BLANCHARD, J. The judgment is affirm- Seymour Van Vorst against Theodore F. Reed. ed, with costs, for the reasons stated in opinion No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of rendered in action No. 1. 84 N. Y. Supp. 550. | $10 costs, and, upon payment of an additional All concur.

$10, leave given to apply to the court below

to open default. UNION TRUST CO. OF ROCHESTER v. SELIG et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- VAN VORST, Respondent, v. REED, Appelsion, Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Action by the Union Trust Company of Roches-Department. November 20, 1903.) Action by ter against Emil Selig, impleaded, etc. No Seymour Van Vorst against Theodore F. Reed. opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dis. $10 costs.

miss appeal, with $10 costs. UNITED PRESS v. A. S. ABELL CO. et. In re VAN WYCK et al. (Supreme Court, al. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division. First | Appellate Division, First Department. NovemDepartment. November 13. 1903.) Action by I ber 6, 1903.) In the matter of Robert A. Van the United Press against the A. S. Abell Com- Wyck and others. F. Bien, for appellant. T. pany and others. From an order vacating an Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Order afattachment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Wil

firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. liam C. Davis, for appellant. Henry T. Fay, for respondent.

VERPLANOK, Respondent, V. MURPHY, PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in

Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate the opinion in United Press v. A. S. Abell Co.

Division, Second Department. November 13, et al. (decided herewith) 84 N. Y. Supp. 425,

1903.) Action by Mary A. Verplanck against the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and

Dennis Murphy, impleaded, etc. No opinion. disbursements.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse

ments. UNITED PRESS et al. v. A. S. ABELL CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. 1. VILLAGE OF CHAMPLAIN, Appellant, v. First Department. November 13, 1903.) AC- McCREA et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, tion by the United Press and others against the Appellate Division, Third Department. NovemA, S. Abell Company and others. From an or- ber 11, 1903.) Action by the village of Chamder vacating an attachment, plaintiff and Felix plain against Matilda McCrea and others. No Agnus, defendant, appeal. Reversed. William opinion. Final order unanimously affirmed, C. Davis, for appellants. Henry T. Fay, for with costs. respondent. PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in

VOSSNACK et al., Respondents, V. GENthe opinion in United Press et al. v. A. S. Abell | GEL et_al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, ApCo. (herewith handed down) 84 N. Y. Supp. I pellate Division, Second Department. . Novem425, the order appealed from should be revers

ber 20, 1903.) 'Action by Herman Vossnack, ed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the

Jr., and others against Jacob Gengel and othmotion to vacate the attachment denied, with

ers. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal $10 costs.

Court affirmed, by consent, with $10 costs.

WALLACE V. HAVANA BRIDGE UNITED PRESS et al. v. A. S. ABELL CO. | WORKS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. December 1, 1903.) AcFirst Department. _ November 13, 1903.) AC-tion by James Wallace against the Havana tion by the United Press and others against the

Bridge Works. No opinion. Plaintiff's excepA. S. Abell Company and others. From an tions overruled. and motion for

tions overruled, and motion for new trial deorder vacating an attachment, plaintiffs appeal. | nied, with costs. Reversed. William C. Davis, for appellants. Henry T. Fay, for respondent.

WALSH v. HANAN et al. (Supreme Court, PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in Appellate Division, Second Department. Octothe opinion in United Press et al. v. A. S. Abell ber 22, 1903.) Action by Bridget Walsh, adCo. (herewith handed down) 84 N. Y. Supp. ministratrix of Johanna Brogan, as adminis

« 上一頁繼續 »