Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

original owner of the certificate, his situation was that merely of an assignee thereof, who held it as collateral security for the repayment of his advances. He therefore was subject to the same conditions which attended the ownership of his assignors, to whom the certificate had been issued. On July 1, 1897, the time when the petitioner, Miller, made application to surrender the certificate, and to receive the rebate due thereon, Floss & Stauber stood towards the state commissioner of excise as the parties holding the certificate and trafficking thereunder, and upon the surrender thereof, though made by a party appearing as their assignee or attorney in fact, with power to surrender and receive payment of the rebate, the right with respect to such a payment was no greater than was possessed by Floss & Stauber. The rights conferred by the possession of the certificate were measured by the statute. The statute created a new and marketable privilege, subject, however, to restrictions and conditions affecting both its exercise and its value. The language of the statute above referred to is unmistakable in forfeiting the rebate, where, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certificate, the person surrendering it shall be arrested for a violation of the liquor tax law. Now, the "person surrendering the certificate" in the present case was not, in a legal sense, Miller, notwithstanding that by the instrument of assignment he was invested with the power to surrender it, and to receive payment of the rebate. There hav ing been no sale of the certificate, Floss & Stauber, to whom it was issued, were the parties to be affected by the cancellation. As a license granted to traffic in liquors, all rights or privileges pertaining thereto were made to depend upon the status of the holder under the statute. It seems to me very plain that Miller, as assignee, took the certificate subject to the conditions and restrictions with which the holding of the same by Floss & Stauber was invested; and thus, when he elected to surrender the same in order to receive the rebate due thereon, his right to the payment was conditional, and dependent upon the completion of the 30 days

thereafter without a violation of the law by Floss & Stauber.

I am unable to see that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the proviso at the end of section 27, to the effect that no sale, assignment, or transfer of a liquor tax certificate shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the liquor tax law, nor permitted by any holder of a certificate who shall be convicted, or be under an indictment, etc., constitutes the sole limitation upon the right of the holder of the certificate to sell and transfer it, is of any avail. That proviso was intended as a restriction upon the right accorded by the statute to the holder to sell or transfer liquor tax certificates. It in nowise impairs the effect of the conditional clause in section 25, heretofore referred to. If the petitioner was the transferee by purchase, as before suggested, his position might be a very different one under the act. I think the appellate division was clearly right in its view of the question discussed; as it was, also, upon the question of whether the indictment of a member of the partnership of Floss & Stauber was an indictment of the person surrendering the certificate, within the meaning of the provisions of section 25. The violation by Stauber of the excise law, for which he was subsequently arrested and indicted, affected the partnership itself, and made it amenable to the provisions of the law. The partnership could only act through the agency of its members, and it would be absurd to hold that where, in the conduct of the business, one of them had violated the statute, the co-partnership would not incur the attendant penalty. The co-partnership may well be a legal entity; but that by no means imports that, in order to cancel its license to do business under the law, it must be indicted as such. A violation of the statute by one of the co-partners is, in legal effect, a violation by the co-partnership, and subjects it to the forfeiture of the right to the rebate, prescribed by section 25. The order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., and HAIGHT, J., dissenting. Order affirmed.

[blocks in formation]

In re ATTORNEY GENERAL. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Third judicial department, entered November 20, 1897, affirming an order of a justice of the supreme court vacating, on motion of Samuel Sloan, an order made by such justice ex parte on the 12th day of May, 1897, requiring Sloan to appear and submit to an examination before the bringing of an action under the provisions of chapter 383 of the Laws of 1897. This case was argued and decided with In re Attorney General, 50 N. E. 57. T. E. Hancock, J. Newton Fiero, and John C. Davies, for appellant. David McClure, for respondent. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur. See 22 App. Div. 285, 47 N. Y. Supp. 883.

BENNETT, Respondent, v. VONDER BOSCH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1898.) Theodore H. Silkman, for appellant. Robert L. Redfield, for respondent. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the argument. See 26 App. Div. 311, 49 N. Y. Supp. 802.

BRADY, Appellant, v. HUTKOFF, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) C. N. Bovee, Jr., and J. McG. Goodale, for appellant. David Leventritt, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 13 Misc. Rep. 515, 34 N. Y. Supp. 947. All concur.

BRETT et al., Appellants, v. HARLAN & HOLLINGSWORTH CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Edward B. Whitney and Henry W. Goodrich, for appellants. Henry B. B. Stapler and Henry W. Smith, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 83 Hun, 555, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1113. All concur.

BROWN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) S. W. Jackson, for appellant. Alonzo P. Strong, for re

spondent. No opinion. with costs. All concur. N. Y. Supp. 1135.

Judgment affirmed, See 88 Hun, 621, 34

BUCK, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF GLENS FALLS, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that no undertaking has been given or served, as required by statute, to perfect the appeal. James H. Bain, for the motion. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs. See 4 App. Div. 323, 38 N. Y. Supp. 582.

In re BUFFALO TRACTION CO. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 3, 1898.) Eugene M. Bartlett, for appellants. J. H. Metcalf, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 25 App. Div. 447, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1052.

BURROUGHS, Appellant, v. TRADESMEN'S NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) McGuire & Low, for appellant. Charles E. Rushmore, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 87 Hun, 6, 33 N. Y. Supp. 864.

CAMBRELENG, Respondent, v. GRAHAM, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) F. R. Coudert, Jr., for appellant. Henry L. Sprague, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting. See 84 Hun, 550, 32 N. Y. Supp. 843.

CAMPBELL et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Second judicial department, entered March 8, 1897 (14 App. Div. 611, 44 N. Y. Supp. 5), affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground that the appellate division unanimously decided that the verdict was supported by the evidence. Wm. B. Hornblower, for the motion. B. C. Chetwood, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

CASSIDY, Appellant, v. ATLANTIC AVE. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Isaac M. Kapper, for appellant. James R. Soley, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except BARTLETT, J., who dissents on the ground that the case is not distinguishable from Nolan v. Railroad Co., 87 N. Y. 63, and VANN, J., not voting. See 12 Misc. Rep. 648, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1126.

CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF BOSTON et al., Appellants, v. STEVENS et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to amend remittitur. See 144 N. Y. 50, 39 N. E. 68.

PER CURIAM. Ordered that the mandate of the supreme court of the United States in this case be annexed to the remittitur herein,

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

CHAMBERLIN, Respondent, v. GLEASON et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Fourth judicial department, entered August 18, 1897 (20 App. Div. 624, 46 N. Y. Supp. 1090), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at special term. The motion was made upon the ground that the appellate division had not allowed the appeal, nor had the appeal been allowed by the court of appeals, or a judge thereof, and upon the further ground that the appellate division unanimously decided there was evidence supporting, or tending to support, the findings of fact and the decision of the trial court. Henry Donnelly and Allen J. Hastings, for the motion. J. H. Waring, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

[blocks in formation]

COXHEAD, Respondent, v. JOHNSON et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York, June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal by permission from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Second judicial department, entered October 19, 1897 (20 App. Div. 605, 47 N. Y. Supp. 389), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground that the certificate allowing the appeal is insufficient, that the judgment is not appealable, and that no exceptions are presented for review. Thomas E. Pearsall, for the motion. Henry Yonge, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

DAVIS, Respondent, v. GUARDIAN ASSUR. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Benno Loewy, for appellant. Samuel Greenbaum, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 87 Hun, 414, 34 N. Y. Supp. 332. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting.

DE CASTRO, Appellant, v. COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE DU TELEGRAPHE DE PARIS A NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Eugene G. Kremer, for appellant. Edward K. Jones, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 85 Hun, 231, 32 N. Y. Supp. 960. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting.

In re DE HAAS' WILL. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered July 1, 1897 (19 App. Div. 266, 46 N. Y. Supp. 189), affirming a judgment entered upon a verdict admitting to probate the will of Maurits F. H. De Haas. The motion was made upon the ground that the affirmance by the appellate division was unanimous. Jacob S. Van Wyck, for the motion. E. L. Heydecker, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10

costs.

DENIKE, Respondent, v. DENIKE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) H. J. Morris, for appellant. Raphael J. Moses, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. with costs. All concur. except O'BRIEN, J., not voting. See 13 Misc. Rep. 381, 34 N. Y. Supp. 250; Id., 49 N. E. 1096.

DOUGLASS et al., Respondents, v. HALSTED et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 6, 1898.) Frederick W. Sherman, for appellants. John H. Clapp, for respondents. No opinion. Appeal dismissed on argument, with costs. See 11 App. Div. 101, 42 N. Y. Supp. 588.

In re DRAINAGE OF CERTAIN LANDS IN TOWN OF PENFIELD. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 3, 1898.) Walter S. Hubbell, for appellant. James M. E. O'Grady, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 3 App. Div. 30, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1056.

DRAKE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK IRON MINE et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898.) No opinion. Motion for reargument or that remittitur be amended denied, with $10 costs. See 156 N. Y. 90, 50 N. E. 785.

ECKHARDT, Respondent, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 10, 1898.) James L. Quackenbush, for appellant. Philip A. Laing, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against defendant on the stipulation, with costs. All concur. See 19 App. Div. 1, 46 N. Y. Supp. 204.

EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. OF BROOKLYN, Respondent and Appellant, v. COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF BROOKLYN, Appellant and Respondent. (Court of Ap

[blocks in formation]

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The motion was made upon the ground that no question is presented for review by the court of appeals, and that the judgment is not appealable. George W. Galinger, for the motion. Wise & Lichtenstein, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10

costs.

GALINGER, Respondent, V. HAMMER. STEIN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898.) Motion to compel the filing of a new undertaking on appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered November 24, 1897 (22 App. Div. 629, 50 N. Y. Supp. 1127), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The motion was made upon the ground of the insufficiency of the sureties on the undertaking filed. George W. Galinger, for the motion. Wise & Lichtenstein, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted requiring the appellant to file new undertaking within 20 days after service of this order, and in default thereof the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

GREEN, Respondent, v. NORTHERN S. S. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Frank Brundage, for appellant. John Laughlin, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 11 Misc. Rep. 717, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

GUTWILLIG, Plaintiff, v. WIEDERMAN et al., Appellants (SCHMÓHL et al., Respondents). (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1898.) Walter Large, for appellants. Frank Barker, for respondents. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur. See 26 App. Div. 26, 49 N. Y. Supp. 984.

HARRIMAN, Respondent, v. HOWE et al., Highway Com'rs, Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) William F. O'Neill, for appellants. William D. Guthrie and Stephen W. Fullerton, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs. All concur, except VANN, J., not voting. See 78 Hun, 280, 28 N. Y. Supp. 858.

HART, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Hamilton & Hammond Odell, for appellant. Edward P. Lyon, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except BARTLETT, J., dissenting. See 84 Hun, 605, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1128.

In re HATCH et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1898.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 155 N. Y. 401, 50 N. E. 49.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DASSORI, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered January 12, 1898 (24 App. Div. 625, 48 N. Y. Supp. 1106), purporting to amend nunc pro tune an order of the same appellate division entered on or about October 25, 1897, reversing a judgment and granting a new trial, by inserting the words, "on a question of fact," after

the words, "ordered that the said final order and the said judgment be and the same hereby are reversed." The motion was made upon the ground that the order is not appealable to the court of appeals. Coudert Bros., for the motion. John Whalen, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

HEATH et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK BUILDING LOAN BANKING CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the late general term of the supreme court in the Second judicial department, made December 2, 1895 (91 Hun, 170, 36 N. Y. Supp. 213), reversing an order of special term granting a new trial and denying to defendant a final judgment. The original plaintiff having died pending appeal to the court of appeals, his executors were substituted as appellants herein. The motion was made upon the grounds that the order is not reviewable by the court of appeals; that any right of review, if any ever existed, has been waived and lost in consequence of the proceedings herein subsequent to the making of the order; and that a review at this time would amount to nothing more than a decision of an abstract question. William H. Hamilton, for the motion. Hector M. Hitchings, opposed. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

HENRIQUES et al., Appellants, v. STERLING et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered April 25, 1898 (26 App. Div. 30, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1071), upon an order affirming a judgment entered upon a decision of the special term dismissing the complaint as to the defendants John W. Sterling and the Central Trust Company, as executors of Miriam A. Osborn, deceased. The motion was made upon the ground that no question of law is involved, and that the decision below was discretionary. James C. Carter and Thomas G. Shearman, for the motion. Delos McCurdy, opposed. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with one bill of costs.

HILLIARD, Special Deputy Com'r of Excise, Appellant, v. GIESE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 3, 1898.) N. N. Stranahan and Alfred R. Page, for appellant. Arthur Furber and Charles L. Hoffman, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 25 App. Div. 222, 49 N. Y. Supp. 286.

HOLME, Respondent, v. STEWART et al., Defendants (SPERRY, Appellant). (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Howard A. Sperry, in pro. per. John H. Henshaw, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., and GRAY and MARTIN, JJ., who dissent on the ground the question is not reviewable in this court. See 25 App. Div. 625, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1138.

HUIE, Respondent, v. ALLEN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 10, 1898.) Frank Brundage, for appellants. Simon Fleischmann, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 87 Hun, 516, 34 N. Y. Supp. 577. All concur.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION CHURCH, Appellant. v. SHEFFER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) M.

M. Tompkins, for appellant. J. A. Elston, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except MARTIN, J., not sitting. See 88 Hun, 335, 34 N. Y. Supp. 724.

INDERLIED et al., Appellants, v. WHALEY et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 10, 1898.) D. H. Hanford, for appellants. Levi H. Brown, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 85 Hun, 63, 32 N. Y. Supp. 640. All concur, except MARTIN, J., not sitting.

IRLBACKER et al., Respondents, v. ROTH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 3, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Fourth judicial department. entered February 14, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee. The motion was made upon the grounds that no question of law was raised in the action, and that the appellate division unanimously decided that there was evidence supporting and tending to sustain the findings of fact of the refWarren F. Miller, for the motion. Shea & Jellinek, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted, with costs. See 25 App. Div. 290, 49 N. Y. Supp. 538.

eree.

JACKSON et al., Respondents, v. NICHOL et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Second_judicial department, entered December 27, 1897 (23 App. Div. 139, 48 N. Y. Supp. 974), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee. The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions are frivolous; that the only question involved is a question of fact; and that the appellate division unanimously decided that the findings of fact are supported by the evidence. Johnston & Johnston, for the motion. Wm. H. Newman, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted, with costs.

KENNEDY, Respondent, v. FITCHBURG R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) T. F. Hamilton, for appellant. Thomas F. Doherty, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 86 Hun, 620, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1127.

KENNEY, Appellant, v. SECOND AVE. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Thomas P. Wickes, for appellant. Charles F. Brown and John T. Little, Jr., for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting. See 89 Hun, 340, 35 N. Y. Supp. 395.

KING et al., Respondents, v. ROSS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered May 13, 1898 (28 App. Div. 371, 51 N. Y. Supp. 138), upon an order affirming (1) an order of special term denying defendant's motion for a trial by jury; (2) a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at special term, the defendant not appearing; and (3) an order of special term denying a motion to disallow an extra allowance. George L. Rives and Richard S. Sweezy, for the motion. Amasa J. Parker, Jr., opposed. No opinion. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.

« ForrigeFortsett »