Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

TWEEDIE, Respondent, v. CLARK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (127 App. Div. 934, 111 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered July 1, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action of replevin. Alexander Neish, for appellant. A. G. Patterson, for respondent.

[blocks in formation]

UNGRICH et al., Respondents, v. SHAFF et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 5, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 902, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1147), entered February 27, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property. Samuel Levy and Harry A. Levinson, for appellants. Harold Swain and Norman Wilmer Chandler, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT. VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HIS COCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

UVALDE ASPHALT PAVING CO., Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 22. 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (128 App. Div. 210, 112 N. Y. Supp. 535), entered October 20, 1908, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term, a jury having been waived, in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (Terence Farley and Theodore Connoly, of counsel), for appellant. Edward M. Grout and James F. McKinney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., absent.

VOGEL V. NACHEMSON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 17, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (137 App. Div. 200, 121 N. Y. Supp. 927), entered March 15, 1910, which reversed an order of Special Term directing distribution of certain surplus moneys remaining in the hands of a receiver appointed in foreclosure proceedings. See, also, 122 N. Y. Supp. 1148. Herman Kahn, for appellant. Louis L. Kahn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

VOGEMANN et al., Respondents, v. AMERICAN DOCK & TRUST CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 26, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Sec

[blocks in formation]

VOORHEES, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 29, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment entered January 20, 1909, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 780, 114 N. Y. Supp. 242), overruling plaintiff's exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for defendant on the nonsuit granted at the Trial Term, in an action by a physician to recover for services rendered to an employé of defendant who had been injured while in the performance of his duties. James W. Hart, for appellant. Edward Harris, Jr., for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

WACHT, Respondent, v. HART, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 31, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment entered July 12, 1907, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (120 App. Div. 189, 105 N. Y. Supp. 78), which reversed an order of the trial court granting a motion for a new trial after a verdict had been directed for plaintiff and directed judgment on the verdict in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Harry G. Anderson, John R. Dos Passos, Louis S. Posner, and William Victor Goldberg, for appellant. Harry A. Levinson and Samuel Levy, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, WERNER. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

WAHL et al., Respondents, v. Lewis et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 17, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (131 App. Div. 921, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered March 12, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover moneys alleged to have been recovered by defendants as attorneys and wrongfully retained by them. See, also, 195 N. Y. 563, 88 N. E. 1134. Helen Z. M. Rogers, Charles B. Sears, and William C. Carroll, for appellants. Elijah W. Holt, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

In re WALBRIDGE et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 3, 1910.) Motion to amend remittitur. See 198 N. Y. 234, 91 N. E. 590. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and remittitur amended, so as to provide that "the affirmance of the order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court appealed from herein shall be and the same is without prejudice to such proceedings, as any of the legatees may elect, to enforce compliance with the ninth clause of the testator's will, and any of said legatees may exercise the privilege or option given by said ninth clause of the testator's will, of taking real property, irrespective of the value of said legatees' distributive share in said es

tate."

22, 1910.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 935, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1104), entered October 12, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (James D. Bell and Jerome W. Coombs, of counsel), for appellant. Benjamin Trapnell, Joseph A. Flannery, James W. Ridgway, and Leo C. Dessar, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT. VANN. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., absent.

WEBBER, Appellant. V. FRANKLIN WARREN, Respondent, v. POST & Mc- BREWING CO., Respondent, et al. (Court of CORD, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New Appeals of New York. March 1, 1910.) ApYork. May 20, 1910.) Appeal from a judg-peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division ment of the Appellate Division of the Su- of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depreme Court in the First Judicial Department partment (123 App. Div. 465, 108 N. Y. Supp. (128 App. Div. 572, 112 N. Y. Supp. 960), en- 251), entered August 7, 1908, affirming a judgtered November 17, 1908, affirming a judgment ment in favor of defendant entered upon a disin favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and missal of the complaint by the court at a Trial an order denying a motion for a new trial in Term in an action to recover the value of ceran action to recover for personal injuries alleg- tain alleged fixtures removed from leased proped to have been sustained by plaintiff through erty. Joseph Rosenzweig, for appellant. Henthe negligence of defendant, his employer. ry F. Cochrane, for respondent." Frank V. Johnson, for appellant. Thomas J. O'Neill and L. F. Fish, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Scott, J., below.

CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

In re WEBB'S WILL. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 5, 1910.) Appeal from an WASHINGTON LIFE INS. CO., Respond-order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme ent, v. SCOTT, Appellant. (Court of Appeals Court in the Second Judicial Department (136 of New York. May 31, 1910.) Appeal from a App. Div. 921, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su- December 30, 1909, which reversed an order of preme Court in the First Judicial Department the Suffolk County Surrogate's Court amending (128 App. Div. 929, 113 N. Y. Supp. 1150), nunc pro tune a former decree admitting to proentered November 20, 1908, affirming a judg- bate the will of Charles S. Webb, deceased. ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a deci- Percy L. Housel and Timothy M. Griffing, for sion of the court at a Trial Term without a appellant. S. A. Crummey and Austin B. Fletjury in an action to recover moneys alleged to cher, for respondents. have been received by defendant in a fiduciary capacity and converted by him to his own use. William B. Ellison and Arnold L. Davis, for appellant. Henry A. Rubino and Finis E. Montgomery, for respondent. PER CURIAM.

costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT. HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., absent.

WEIDENKOFER, Appellant, v. CONNOLLY, Respondent. York. March 15, 1910.) Appeal from a judg (Court of Appeals of New ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (127 App. Div. 947, 111 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered July 10, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the com

tion to charge a legacy upon the real property of the decedent. Percival De Witt Oviatt, for appellant. Milton Noyes, for respondent.

WASSERMAN, Respondent, v. JACOBS, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 22, 1910.) Appeal from a judg-plaint by the court at an Equity Term in an acment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 902, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered February 26, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property. See, also, 126 App. Div. 917, 110 N. Y. Supp. 1149. Franklin Bien, for appellant. Sidney Lowenthal and Ira Leo Bamberger, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT; and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., absent.

In re WATER SUPPLY IN CITY OF NEW

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur..

WEYAND et al., Respondents, v. PARK TERRACE CO., Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 22, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (135 App. Div. 821, 120 N. Y. Supp. 192), entered January 25 1910, which affirmed a final judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court

verdict in an action to recover for goods sold and delivered. The motion was made upon the grounds that the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by section 1325 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and had not been perfected by filing the required undertaking. Walter H. Dodd, for the motion. Gates Hamburger, opposed.

judgment, an order of reference, and an order | judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a granting an additional allowance in an action to foreclose a mortgage. The motion was made upon the grounds that the questions involved had become academic, that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous, that the appeal was taken for purposes of delay only, and that the appellant had failed to perfect said appeal. See, also, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1149. Frederick S. Jackson, for the motion. Emil Schneeloch, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10

costs.

WHEELER, Appellant, v. NORTHRUP et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 15, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (123 App. Div. 913, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered January 14, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at an Equity Term in an action to set aside a certain deed, lease, and contract. Helen Z. M. Rodgers and Adelbert Moot, for appellant. W. H. Ticknor, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J.. and VANN. WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. HÁIGHT, J., not voting.

WIENER v. BASS et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 31, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (129 App. Div. 926, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered January 14, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage. Isaac N. Miller, M. Wolodarsky, and Abraham Wolodarsky, for appellant. Herman S. Bachrach and George Tonkonogy, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY. VANN, WERNER. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

WILLIAMS. Respondent. v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant. April 26, (Court of Appeals of New York. 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (130 App. Div. 898, 115 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered February 24, 1909, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirming an order denying a motion new trial in an action to recover for for a personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. Lemuel E. Quigg, Bayard H. Ames, John Montgomery, and James L. Quackenbush, for appellant. Clarence J. Shearn and John T. Sturdevant, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ, concur.

(Court

April 26, 1910.)

WINCHELL, Appellant, v. NEW YORK of Appeals of New York. CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Ju dicial Department (128 App. Div. 914, 112 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered November 18, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. Frank C. Sargent, for appellant. A. H. Cowie, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD

WM. MESSER CO., Respondent, v. ROTH-BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. STEIN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 15. 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart ment (129 App. Div. 215, 113 N. Y. Supp. 772), entered December 23, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. See, also. 132 App. Div. 932, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1150. Jacob Maheim and Harry A. Gordon. for appellants. Max Monfried and Aaron A. Feinberg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that no question as to the validity of plaintiff's lien was raised in the answer or on the trial.

CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

WILLIAMS, Respondent. v. BETTELS. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 7, 1910.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (134 App. Div. 983, 119 N. Y. Supp.

York. May 20. 1910.)
In re WOLFF. (Court of Appeals of New
of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Appeal from an order
Court in the Second Judicial Department (122
N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered March 31, 1910,
ing a motion for a peremptory writ of man-
which affirmed an order of Special Term grant-
damus to compel the defendant to reinstate the
relator in the office of chief of police of the
Counsel (Max Cohen, of counsel), for appel-
city of Yonkers. Thomas F. Curran, Corp.
lant. James M. Hunt, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.
CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT,
WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and
CHASE, JJ., concur.

WOULFE, Respondent, V. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 4, 1910.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (128 App. Div. 911, 112 N. Y. Supp. 1150), entered October 20, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plain

[blocks in formation]

WURSTER et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 17, 1910.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (136 App. Div. 408, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1029), entered January 26, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to continue pendente lite an injunction restraining the discontinuance of certain ferries across the East River. The following questions were certified: "First. Can the plaintiffs maintain this action? Second. May the Supreme Court in its discretion grant the injunction asked for pendente lite?" See. also, 122 N. Y. Supp. 1150. Nathaniel A. Elsberg, Chase Mellen, and Francis Woodbridge, for appellants. Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Terence Farley, of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. First question answered in the negative; second question not answered.

GRAY, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

AKRON WATERWORKS CO. v. CITY OF AKRON. (No. 11,101.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 8, 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Summit County. Allen, Waters, Young & Andress, for plaintiff in error. Nicholas M. Greenberger and Jonathan Taylor, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry. It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas sustaining a general demurrer to the amended petition. The suit was brought by the city solicitor under section 1777, Rev. St. 1890, for the specific performance of a contract to maintain waterworks and to supply the city and its inhabitants with water, the contract is not set out in the petition, it is not averred that it is in the power of the defendant to perform, and the allegations are so general and indefinite that they do not state a case either for forfeiture or specific performance. And, this court proceeding to render the judgment that the circuit court should have rendered, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be, and the same hereby is, affirmed, and that the defendant in error, the Akron Waterworks Company, recover from the plaintiff in error, the city of Akron, its costs, and that said city pay

its own costs.

[blocks in formation]

APPLER v. PORTSMOUTH ST. R. & LIGHT CO. (No. 11.884.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 1, 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Scioto County. James S. Thomas and Oscar W. Newman, for plaintiff in error. Milner, Miller & Searl, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of reversal of judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed. final judgment of circuit court reversed, and cause remanded to the court of common pleas for new trial.

SUMMERS, C. J., and CREW, SPEAR, and PRICE, JJ., concur.

[blocks in formation]

BAER v. GILL et al. (No. 11.840.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 10, 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Cuyahoga County. R. C. Linder, for plaintiff in error. Myers & Green, W. H. Schwartz, J. W. Sykora, Edward H. Tracy, J. DeKaiser, R. C. Linder, Fred Desberg, A. S. Kraus, A. A. Maresch, and E. J. Albl, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. SUMMERS, C. J., and CREW, SPEAR,

BEILSTINE v. CITY OF AKRON. (No.
11,702.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 22,
1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Summit County.
Miller & Wilson, for plaintiff in error. Nicholas
M. Greenberger, City Sol., and Jonathan Taylor,
Asst. City Sol., for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
CREW, SHAUCK, and PRICE, JJ., concur.

have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of said court of common pleas be, and the same hereby is, reversed, because said court erred in refusing to give the third and seventh instructions requested by the original defendant, and because the evidence of the original plaintiff showed that the injury of her intestate was due to his own want of It is further considered that said plaintiff in error recover its costs in this action in this court and in the circuit court, and that said cause be remanded to the court of common pleas of Pike county for a new trial. SUMMERS, C. J., and CREW, SHAUCK, DAVIS, and PRICE, JJ., concur.

care.

BENHAM.v. BAKER et al. (No. 11,175.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 21, 1910.)_Error to Circuit Court, Miami County. E. H. & R. A. Kerr, for plaintiff in error. Long & Kyle and A. B. Campbell, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NORWICH CREW, SPEAR, and SHAUCK, JJ., concur. TP. v. BROWN et al. (No. 11.438.) (Supreme

BENNETT et al., County Com'rs, v. SHERER et al. (No. 11,843.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 10, 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Shelby County. Charles C. Marshall and Percy R. Taylor, for plaintiffs in error. Munger & Kennedy and R. L. Gowdy were permitted to submit a brief for plaintiff in error on behalf of other parties similarly interested. Wicoff, Emmons & Needles and J. D. Barnes, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of circuit court and of the court of common pleas reversed, and cause remanded to the board of county commissioners.

CREW, DAVIS, SHAUCK, and PRICE, JJ.,

[blocks in formation]

Court of Ohio. March 22, 1910.) Error to
Circuit Court, Franklin County. Godown &
Godown and Pugh & Pugh, for plaintiff in er-
ror. J. F. Rogers, for defendants in error.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
CREW, SPEAR, and SHAUCK, JJ., concur.

[blocks in formation]

BRICKMAN et al. v. SHALE et al. (No. BOARD OF COM'RS OF PIKE COUNTY 1910.) Error to Circuit Court, Cuyahoga Coun11,520.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 3, T. VONSCHRILTZ. (No. 11,719.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 12, 1910.) Error to Cir- ty. C. R. Grant, W. B. Neff, F. R. Marvin, and cuit Court, Pike County. C. M. Caldwell and W. D. McTighe, for plaintiffs in error. Eylar & Douglas, for plaintiff in error. Dough- Mooney and Meyer & Mooney, for defendants erty & Moore, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and judgment for plaintiff in error. Grounds stated in journal entry. It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed. And, this court proceeding to render

in error.

M. P.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
CREW, SPEAR, and SHAUCK, JJ., concur

BRUDNO v. MAYER. (No. 11,877.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 17, 1910.) Error to

« ForrigeFortsett »