Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

In re KLEIN, (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion for leave to file nunc pro tunc as of September 30, 1897, a regents' law-student certificate, dated January 27, 1898, and filed February 24, 1898. The motion was made upon the ground that the petitioner took an examination in English history, the last subject required for the completion of his regents' examination, on September 30, 1897, in accordance with the schedule of the University of the State of New York, and delivered his paper with his card bearing his seat number to the attendant, and thereafter, in accordance with the rules of the department, made the usual affidavit; that the records of the regents' office fail to show any record of his September examination; and that he took another examination on January 27, 1898, which he successfully passed, and then received his law-student certificate, which he filed with the clerk of the court of appeals February 24, 1898. Leo W. Harburger, for the motion. No opinion. Motion denied upon authority of In re Mason, 140 N. Y. 658, 35 N. E. 654, without costs.

LAWSON, Respondent, v. EGGLESTON, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Fourth judicial department, entered April 1, 1898 (28 App. Div. 52, 52 N. Y. Supp. 181), 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 grounds that no questions of law are involved in the appeal; that no certificate allowing the appeal has been granted by the appellate division or a judge of the court of appeals; and that the decision of the appellate division that there was evidence to support the verdict was unanimous. J. R. & M. B. Jewell, for the motion. Thrasher & Leonard, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

LEE, Appellant, v. TIMKEN, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 13, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an interlocutory judgment entered March 23, 1898 (23 App. Div. 349, 48 N. Y. Supp. 251), upon an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a decision of the court overruling a demurrer to the second defense to the answer on trial at special term. George E. Mott, for the motion. V. Wright Kingsley, opposed. No opinion. Appeal dismissed for want of certificate of appellate division, as the action is not finally determined, with costs of appeal and $10 costs of motion.

firmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below. See 84 Hun, 118, 32 N. Y. Supp. 461. All

concur.

LITTLE, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) A. J. Rodenbeck, for appellants. Horace McGuire and Walter S. Hubbell, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 87 Hun, 493, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1010. All concur.

LUCCO, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1898.) Albert H. Harris, for appellant. Norris Bull, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 87 Hun, 612, 34 N. Y. Supp. 277. All concur. except PARKER, C. J., and GRAY, J., who dissent.

MCCARRAN, Appellant, v. MCKENNA et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered April 19, 1897 (16 App. Div. 311, 44 N. Y. Supp. 695), affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on trial at special term. The motion was made upon the ground that the order is not appealable. John Bottomley, for the motion. Bliss & Schley, opposed. No opinion. Motion granted, with costs.

MAYTHAM, Respondent, v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Clinton B. Gibbs, for appellant. William Burnet Wright, Jr., for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 88 Hun, 616, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1111.

MEAD, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Julien T. Davies and J. Osgood Nichols, for appellants. Joseph H. Choate and William V. Rowe, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 12 Misc. Rep. 646, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1130.

MILES, Respondent, v. FONDA, J. & G. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) A. D. L. Baker, for appellant. Z. S. Westbrook, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except GRAY, O'BRIEN, and HAIGHT, JJ., dissenting. See 86 Hun, 508, 33 N. Y. Supp. 729. a

LENNON, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered January 21, 1898 (23 App. Div. 293, 48 N. Y. Supp. 456), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The motion was made upon the grounds that the court of appeals has no jurisdiction; that the affirmance by the appellate division was unanimous; and that the exceptions are frivolous. Alex Thain, for the motion. Frank E. Smith, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10

costs.

LINK, Appellant, v. MOORE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 13, 1898.) Edwin Countryman, for appellant. Chas. F. Doyle, for respondent. No opinion. Order af

In re MILLER et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 155 N. Y. 646, 49 N. E. 757.

NATIONAL PARK BANK OF NEW YORK, Appellant and Respondent, v. GODDARD et al., Respondents and Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 10, 1898.) Robert D. Murray, for plaintiff. Louis Marshall, Abraham Gruber, and Franklin Pierce, for defendants. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting. See 87 Hun, 487, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1144.

NEILL, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN EL. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Nathan Ottinger, for appellant. James & Thomas H. Troy, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 13 Misc. Rep. 403, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1144.

NEWCOMB et al., Appellants, v. LUSH et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Theodore F. Hamilton, for appellants. E. Countryman and Learned Hand, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendants on stipulation, with costs, on opinion below. See 84 Hun, 254, 32 N. Y. Supp. 526. All concur.

NEW YORK SECURITY & TRUST CO., Respondent, v. SARATOGA GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., et al., Appellants. REYNOLDS, Appellant, V. NEW YORK SECURITY & TRUST CO. et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion to dismiss appeals, in the first case, from a judgment of the late general term of the supreme court in the Third judicial department, entered September 16, 1895 (88 Hun, 569, 34 N. Y. Supp. 890), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at special term; in the second case, from a judgment of the same general term affirming a judgment in favor of defendent entered upon a decision of the court on trial at special term. The motion was made upon the ground that the appellant William V. Reynolds has been dead for more than a year, and that no one has been substituted in his place. Hornblower, Byrne & Taylor, for the motion. Edward Winslow Paige, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

[blocks in formation]

Townsend and Julien T. Davies, for appellants. E. W. Tyler and Edward A. Hibbard, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting. See 87 Hun, 621, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1145.

PEOPLE, Appellant, v. FREEMAN, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898.) Charles E. Le Barbier, for appellant. John R. Dos Passos and Edmund Francis Harding, for respondent. No opinion. Order of appellate division affirmed, on opinion below. See 25 App. Div. 583, 50 N. Y. Supp. 984.

PEOPLE ex rel. BLOCHER, Respondent, v. CROWLEY et al., Board of Assessors of City of Buffalo, Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 3, 1898.) William H. Cuddeback and Albert H. Jackson, for appellants. Hammond & Brown, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except HAIGHT and VANN, JJ., not voting. See 21 App. Div. 304, 47 N. Y. Supp. 457.

PEOPLE ex rel. CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. OSBORN et al., Highway Com'rs, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) W. F. O'Neill, for appellant. A. H. F. Seeger, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except VANN, J., not voting. See 84 Hun, 441, 32 N. Y. Supp. 358.

PEOPLE ex rel. McLAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. MOSS et al., Police Com'rs, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) George H. Bruce, for appellant. Theodore Connoly and Terence Farley, for respondents. No opinion. Appeal dismissed on argument, with costs. See 26 App. Div. 625, 50 N. Y. Supp. 1132.

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW ENGLAND LOAN & TRUST CO., Appellant, v. ROBERTS, Comptroller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1898.) Frederick R. Coudert, Jr., Chas. Fred. Adams, and Harmon S. Graves, for appellant. T. E. Hancock, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 25 App. Div. 16, 49 N. Y. Supp. 10. All concur, except O'BRIEN, J., not voting.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

No

PEOPLE ex rel. SOMERVILLE, Appellant, v. ROOSEVELT et al., Board of Police, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898) Edward H. Hawke, Jr., and Joseph A. Flannery, for appellant. Theodore Connoly and Terence Farley, for respondents. opinion. Order of appellate division and the determination of the commissioners reversed, with costs in all courts, on People v. Police Com'rs of City of New York, 155 N. Y. 40, 49 N. E. 257. All concur. See 13 App. Div. 625, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1131.

PEOPLE ex rel. SPRAGUE, Respondent, v. FITZGERALD, District Attorney, Defendant (ENGELBRECHT, Appellant). (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1898.) Calvin D. Van Name, for appellant. George J. Green50 N.É.-71

[blocks in formation]

RECTOR, ETC., OF CHURCH OF THE HOLY APOSTLES IN CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Motion to amend return on appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Second judicial department, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York, October 7, 1897 (21 App. Div. 47, 47 N. Y. Supp. 418), reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at special term, and granting a new trial, by inserting a resettlement of the order of the appellate division, showing that the reversal was "a unanimous decision," and was granted both upon questions of fact and upon questions of law; also motion for leave to renew motion to dismiss the appeal (see 155 N. Y. 675, 49 N. E. 1103); also motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it is taken from a unanimous decision of the appellate division, reversing the judgment of the court below both upon the facts and upon the law. James B. Ludlow, for the motions. Charles A. Gardiner, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion to amend return granted on payment of defendants' disbursements on this appeal up to the time of the resettlement of the appellate division order, with leave to the defendants to withdraw the appeal within 20 days, without costs, but without prejudice to a renewal of the motion to dismiss the appeal, if the appeal be not withdrawn within 20 days after notice of the filing of this order.

REILLY et al., Respondents, v. LEE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Artemas B. Smith, for appellant. L. Laflin Kellogg and Alfred C. Petté, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 85 Hun, 315, 32 N. Y. Supp. 976. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting, and O'BRIEN, J., not voting.

RENSSELAER COUNTY, Respondent, V. NATIONAL BANK OF TROY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Thomas S. Fagan, for appellant. L. E. Griffith and H. O. Ingalls, for respondent. No opinion. Appeal dismissed on argument, with costs. See 27 App. Div. 631, 50 N. Y. Supp. 1133.

ROCHESTER PRINTING CO., Appellant, v. MARION et al., Respondents. CLARK, Appellant, v. SAME, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) David N. Salisbury, for appellant. Edward F. Wellington, for respondent Fahy. William B. Hale, for respondent Kinney. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 88 Hun, 614, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1116.

[blocks in formation]

SCHOEN, Appellant, v. WAGNER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898.) Motion for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered February 7, 1896 (1 App. Div. 298, 37 N. Y. Supp. 367), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and granting a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground that as the order of the appellate division did not state whether the reversal was on the facts or law or both, and as the appellate división had denied a motion to amend its order so as to state that the reversal was not upon the facts, under the decision in Henavie v. Railroad Co., 154 N. Y. 278, 48 N. E. 525, no appeal will lie from the order of reversal, and the appellant, having given a stipulation for judgment absolute, will be deprived of all redress unless the appeal is withdrawn. Edward C. James, for the motion. No opinion. Motion granted, upon payment of costs of appeal that have accrued up to the present time, and $10 costs of motion.

SCHOUT, Appellant, v. CONKEY AVE. SAVING, AID & LOAN ASS'N, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Herbert J. Stull, for appellant. Edwin McKnight, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 87 Hun, 568, 32 N. Y. Supp. 713, and 34 N. Y. Supp. 1147.

SCHUTT, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) Arthur O. Townsend and Julien T. Davies, for appellants. Edward A. Hibbard, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., dissenting. See 13 Misc. Rep. 772, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1147.

In re SEARLS. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1898.) Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 155 N. Y. 333, 49 N. E. 938.

SIEBURG, Respondent, ▼. MASSACHUSETTS BEN. LIFE ASS'N, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Cephas Brainerd and J. K. Hayward, for appellant. Andrew Shiland, Jr., for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 87 Hun, 199, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1064. All concur, except PARKER, C. J., not sitting.

SNECK, Respondent, v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) George F. Yeoman, for appellant. Howard W. Sneck, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against defendant on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below. See 88 Hun, 94, 34 N. Y. Supp. 545. All concur, except HAIGHT, J., not sitting.

SNELLING, Respondent, v. YETTER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered February 19, 1898 (25 App. Div. 590, 49 N. Y. Supp. 917), reversing a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, and granting a new trial, and also from an order entered on the same day, reversing an order of special term denying a motion for the resettlement of the order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The motion was made upon the grounds that the undertaking is insufficient in amount, and that the orders are not appealable. Redfield & Redfield, for the motion. Wilder & Anderson, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

WESSELS, Respondent, v. CARR, 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 March 30, 1897 (15 App. Div. 360, 44 N. Y. Supp. 114), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint, with leave to answer over. The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment appealed from is an interlocutory, and not a final, judgment. W. J. Woods, for the motion. Franklin Bien, opposed. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

WHITE, Respondent, v. MCNULTY, 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 upon an order made April 1, 1898 (26 App. Div. 173, 49 N. Y. Supp. 903), 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 decision of the appellate division was unanimous. Smith & White, for the motion. Towns & McCrossin, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. DATER, appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June

7, 1898.) Edward S. Griffing and T. F. Hamilton, for appellant. Calvin E. Keach, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. Supp. 1151.

WISS, Respondent, v. BUFFALO, R. & P. RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1898.) Henry G. Danforth, for appellant. George Bowen and Walter H. Smith, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 90 Hun, 605, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1119.

ZORN, Respondent, v. McPARLAND, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 19, 1898.) John J. Macklin and Reginald H. Arnold, for appellant. Alexander S. Lyman, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 11 Misc. Rep. 555, 32 N. Y. Supp. 770.

ALLEN et al. v. NATIONAL BANK OF AMERICA. (Supreme Court of Illinois. Feb. 14, 1898.) Error to appellate court, First district. Action by the National Bank of America against Benjamin Allen. From a judgment of the appellate court reversing a decree dismissing the appeal, Benjamin Allen and others appeal. Reversed.

PER CURIAM. The record in this case and the errors assigned thereon are the same as in the case of Sprague v. Bank, 50 N. E. 19. The two cases were submitted on the same briefs and abstracts. The opinion filed at this term in the Sprague Case is adopted as the opinion in this case, and the same judgment will be entered in this as in that case. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and that of the appellate court affirmed, except as modified in the matter of directions, etc., and the cause is remanded.

ARGYLE CO. v. SOUTH PARK COM'RS. (Supreme Court of Illinois. April 21, 1898.) Error to Cook county court; Thomas G. Windes, Judge. Petition by the South Park commissioners to have confirmed a special assessment against lands abutting a certain part of a street, for the cost of converting it into a boulevard. There was a judgment of confirmation, and the Argyle Company, lessee of part of said lands, brings error. Affirmed. Johnson & Morrill, for plaintiff in error. Green, Robbins & Honore, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. This case involves the same question raised and decided in Aldis v. Commissioners, 171 Ill. 424, 49 N. E. 565, and Bass v. Commissioners, 171 Ill. 370, 49 N. E. 549; and the ruling in these cases must control here. For the reasons stated in the cases cited, the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed. Affirmed.

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. WODRIG. SAME v. BERTRUM. (Supreme Court of Illinois. June 18, 1898.) Appeal from circuit court, McLean county; Colostin D. Myers, Judge. Actions of ejectment, one by Carl Wodrig, the other by George Bertrum, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judgments for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. Williams & Capen and C. V. Guin, for appellant. Thompson & Donahue, for appellees.

PER CURIAM. See 80 Hun, 601, 29 N. Y.

WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. DATER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 14, 1898.) Motion for extra costs (under subdivision 5, § 3251, Code Civ. Proc.) by way of damages for delay alleged to have been caused by appellant. See 156 N. Y. , supra. Calvin E. Keach, for the motion. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

These cases are in all essential respects similar to the case of Railroad Co. v. Wakefield, 50 N. E. 1002, except that in these cases the railroad company derived its right of way from private owners, and not by grant from the state. For the reasons given in that case and the cases referred to there, these cases are affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

MICHAEL v. PEOPLE ex rel. PEABODY, County Treasurer. (Supreme Court of Illinois. Dec. 22, 1897.) Appeal from Christian county

« ForrigeFortsett »