« ForrigeFortsett »
tember 14, 1896.) Action by David F. Smith TOZIER, Respondent, V. PARKER, Appelagainst Alvin B. Champlin. No opinion. Mo- lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tion denied, with costs.
Fourth Department. March, 1896.) Action by
Lemuel L. Tozier against Le Roy Parker. No SMITH, Respondent, v. JUDSON et al., Ap- opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, costs. Third Department. September 22, 1896.) ACtion by J. Augustus Smith against John B. Judson and Alrah 11. Rogers. No opinion. Judg TRELFORD, Appellant, v. CONEY ISLAND ment of county court affirmed. All concur.
& B. R. CO., Respondent. LAKELAND V. SAME. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department. June 23, 1896.) On rearSOLOMON v. ISAAC. (Supreme Court, An- gument. For decision on appeal, see 39 N. Y. pellate Term, First Department. January 31, Supp. 20. 1896.) No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
PER CURIAM. When this case was last before us we did not overlook the questions dis
cussed by the appellant on the present motion STERNGLANZ V. HUNGERFORD. Su- for a reargument, though as to two of such preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- questions we regarded them as settled by concesment. January 14, 1896.) No opinion. Order sions of the respective counsel made on the arallirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. gument. In our opinon, the removal by the de
fendant of its tracks from a part of the Coney STODDARD, Respondent, V. BRAZELL, Island plank road, and its abandonment of that Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, part of its road for a period, did not determine Fourth Department. March, 1896.) Action by or forfeit the defendant's franchise over such Priscilla Stoddard against Jane D. Brazell. No road, so as to prevent the defendant from relay. opinion. The justice's judgment modified by re- ing its tracks thereon. Such abandonment only ducing the same to $29.54 as to damages, and operated as a cause of forfeiture, of which the the judgment of the county court also modified people alone could take advantage, as was done so as to conform to justice's judgment as so
in the case of People v. Broadway R. Co., modified, with only $10 costs and disbursements 120 N. Y. 29, 26 N. E. 961. The principle that in that court to the responrient, and the jus- an abutter has sufficient special interest in a tice's judgment, as so modified, and the judg- street to restruin an unlawful structure therein ment of the county court, as so modified, af has no application to this case, for the defendfirmed, without costs to either party on the ap- ar!'s railroad is a lawful structure till the state peal in this court. See 37 N. Y. Supp. 1145, claims a forfeiture. The proceeding to open Nepand 39 N. Y. Supp. 1133.
tune avenue did not and could not affect the de. fendant's railroad franchise, whether an award
was made for it or not. The opening proceedSTONE. Appellant, v. STONE et al., Re-ling was to acquire all property rights necessary spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, to rest in the people of the state or the city of First Department. September 9, 1896.) Ac- Brooklyn the easement of a public highway in tion by Andros B. Stone against Georgiana C. the land taken. The railroad easement and Stone and others. No opinion. Motion grant franchise was not inconsistent, but consistent, ed unless appellant pays $10 costs. See 39 with the public easement, and there wis no 90:N. Y. Supp. 1133.
thority given by law to condemn it. It was
conceded by counsel for the defendant, and prop TOMPKINS, Respondent, v. SHEEHAN, erly, in our opinion, that the defendant could not Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, use electric power in the operation of its railroad Third Department. September 22, 1896.) Ас
without the consent of the railroad commissiontion by Hiram Tompkins against Cornelius Shee-ers.
We also think that it must be confined, in han. No opinion. Judgment and order affirm- relaying its road, to the location of the old Coed, with costs. All concur.
ney Island road; though we do not say that by the consent of the local authorities such location
mav not be changed to the new part of Neptune TOWN OF FT. COVINGTON. Respondent, uvenue. Such change would not be the grant v. UNITED STATES & C. R. CO. et al., Ap- of a new franchise. The injunction shoulu. pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, therefore, be not wholly vacated, but modified Third Department. September 14, 1896.) AC- so as to restrain the defendant from operating tion by the town of Ft. Covington against the its road with electricity except with the consent United States & Canada Railroad Company and of the railroad commissioners, or on any part of others. No opinion. Motion denied. See 40 Neptune avenue not lying within the limits of N. Y. Supp. 313.
the old Coney Island road, except by the con
sent of the local authorities. TOWNSEND et al., Respondents, v. CHAPIN et_al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. September VAN KEUREN, Appellant, v. VAN KEU9. 1896.) Action by Samuel C. Townsend and REN, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate others against George A. Chapin and others. Division, Third Department. September 22, B. L. Winters, for appellants. Č. H. Fuller, for 1896.) Action by Peter E. Van Keuren against respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with William W. Van Keuren. No opinion. Judg. $10 costs and disbursements.
ment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
VAN OLINDA, Appellant. v. HALL, Re WILDS'et al., Respondents, v. WILCOX et spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiThird Department. September 22, 1896.) Ac- vision, First Department. September 9, 1896.) tion by Josephine Van Olinda against Mary B. Action by Judson B. Wilds and others against Hall. No opinion. Judgment attirmed, with Mary P. Wilcox and others. D. Welch, for apcosts. All concur.
pellants. G. C. Holt, for respondents. No opin
ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disWALSH, Respondent, v. WALSH, Appellant. bursements. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March, 1896.) Action by Anna
In re WILLIAMS. (Supreme Court, AppelWalsh against Andrew J. Walsh. •No opinion. late Division, Fourth Department. March, Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse- 1896.) Application by Harry D. Williams to
compel the county clerk of Erie county to file certificates of nominations. No opinion.
OrWALSMANN v. TAMSEN. (Supreme Court, der reversed, with costs. Appellate Division, First Department. January 14, 1896.) No opinion. Order affirmed, with WOOD v. CHARDON. (Supreme Court, $10 costs and disbursements.
Appellate Division, First Department. January
14, 1876.) No opinion. Order affirmed, with WARD v. BURGHER. (Supreme Court, Ap- $10 costs and disbursements. peilate Division, Third Department. September 14, 1896.) Summary proceedings by J. Q. WOODBRIDGE, Respondent, V. MARKS, A. Ward against Homer Burgher, No opinion. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Motion for a reargument, or for leave to go to Thir Department. July 7, 1896.) Action by the court of appeals, denied. See 35 N. Y. William R. Woodbridge against William D. Supp. 961.
Marks. No opinion. Motion for leave to go to
the court of appeals denied, without costs. See WHITE V. ANDREWS. (Supreme Court,
36 N. Y. Supp. 81, aflirmed in 40 N. Y. Supp. Appellate Term, First Department. January
728. 31. 1896.) No opinion. Motion to add causes to calendar granted.
WYOMING VALLEY SUIT CO., Respond
ent, v. SEARS et al., Appellants. (Supreme In re WHITNEY. (Supreme Court, Appel. Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Departinent. late Division, First Department. September 9, July 30, 1896.) Action by the Wyoming Val1896.) No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 ley Suit Company against William Ě. Sears and costs and disbursements, on the authority of Walter R. Westbrook. No opinion. Judgment People v. Waring, 1 App. Div. 594, 37 N. Y. and order affirmed, with costs. GREEN, J. Supp. 478; Id., 149 N. Y, 621, 44 N. E.
END OF CASES IN VOL. 40.
tions, unless they were made pursuant to some
special statite.-Carroll v. Collins (Sup.) 54.
Laws 1887, c. 703, conferring the right of in-
heritance on adopted children, applies to chil-
dren theretofore adopted.-Dodin v. Dodin (Sup.)
Evidence held not sufficient to show adverse
Admissions of, see "Contempt."
Marriage Promise"; "Libel and Slander"; For change of renue, see "Venue."
cific Performance”; “Trespass.'
savings bank, see “Banks and Banking." See “Corporations”; “Principal and Agent."
trust against trustee,
Suspending power of, see "Wills.”
ployer, see “Insurance."
Of judgment, see "Judgment."
Of pleadings, see "Pleading."
Complaint in action for bite of vicious dog
need not expressly allege that defendant was
Marks (Sup.) 728.
Annexing territory to city, see "Municipal Cor-
See, also, “Certiorari."
Costs on appeal, see “Costs."
tices of the Peace."
In proceeding to open highway, see “High-Discretion of trial court.
It is discretionary with the trial court to re-
S. J. Held Co. (Sup.) 692; Oakland Chemical
Co. v. Same, Id.
When order was not taken by default, so as Weight and sufficiency of evidence.
not be disturbed.-Gadd v. United States Sar-
eral term of the New York City_court cannot
mission or exclusion of evidence, the appellate
division cannot consider the weight of the evi-
dence.-Cox v. Davis (Sup.) 761.
Stay of proceedings.
judgment which has been unanimously affirmed
by the appellate division.-Connolly v. Manhat-
tan Ry. Co. (Sup.) 1007; De Balaine v. Same,
Error in denying motion to dismiss complaint
for insufficiency of evidence is cured by sulises
quent introduction of evidence.-Pollatschek v.
Goodwin (Sup.) 682.
Appeal will be dismissed where appellant his
his own act has rendered a reversal una railing
to him.--Haggerty v. Ryan (City Ct. X. 1.)
Erroneously refusing to vacate attachment is
no ground for reversing judgment on the merits.
-Tuller v. Howard (Co. Ct.) 739.
Objections not raised below.
Service of motion to vacate attachment is not
Of shares of stock, see "Corporations."