TOWNSEND et al., Respondents, v. HIRSH-, partment (173 App. Div. 984, 159 N. Y. Supp. KIND, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New 1146), entered June 2, 1916, unanimously afYork. May 17, 1918.) Appeal from a judg- firming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enterment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme ed upon a verdict directed by the court in an Court in the First Judicial Department (176 action to recover upon certain promissory notes. App. Div. 520, 163 N. Y. Supp. 498), entered The defendant set up as a counterclaim that March 2, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor the plaintiff held as collateral security for of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by loans made by it to the defendant Heinze vathe court in an action upon a bond whereby rious securities which were deposited under defendant promised to pay to plaintiffs' testa- an agreement by which the defendant should trix the sum of $5,000. The defense was that have the right at any time to redeem such of the signature of the bond was induced by fraud- the securities as he desired by paying the ulent representations of the agent of the deced- plaintiff the market price at the time of reent, with which she was chargeable with the demption, which amount should be applied on same effect as if she had made such fraudulent the defendant's indebtedness; that on numerrepresentations inducing said signature of the ous occasions the defendant demanded that he defendant herself. It was further alleged that be permitted to redeem, at their respective said agent was at the time defendant's attorney market values, various of the securities, but and confidential adviser, and that said attorney the plaintiff refused to permit such redemption induced him to sign three papers, one of which or to sell them at their respective market valwas the bond in suit, another a mortgage upon ues with the result that they depreciated to an interest in the estate of one Goldenberg, and the defendant's substantial loss; that a part the third a check for $5,000 drawn by said at- of the stocks and securities are still held by torney to defendant's order on the Corn Ex- the plaintiff. Charles A. Winter, of New York change Bank all of which he signed relying on City, for appellant. Joseph G. Deane and said attorney's statements that they were doc- Philip A. Walter, both of New York City, for uments connected with some transaction relat- respondent. ing to property belonging to said attorney and by him carried in the name of the defendant and that they involved the defendant in no personal liability to pay money, as the result of which he did not read the papers and did not know their contents or effect. George H. Taylor, Jr., of New York City, and Harry V. Morgan, of Mount Vernon, for appellant. Louis H. Hall, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

*

PER CURIAM.

costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur.

In re UNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 2, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 923. 166 N. Y. Supp. 292), entered July 13, 1917, which affirmed a decree of the New York TYNAN. Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW County Surrogate's Court judicially settling YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of the accounts of the trustee and construing New York. March 26, 1918.) Appeal from the will of Rhoda E. Hoyt, deceased. The tesa judgment of the Appellate Division of the tatrix, by her will, erected a trust for the benSupreme Court in the Second Judicial Depart-efit of each of her four children with remainment (174 App. Div. 922, 160 N. Y. Supp. 1149). der to their issue if any, but "in the event that entered August 7, 1916. affirming a judgment any of my said children die without leaving in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal lawful issue, then I give, devise and bequeath of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term the share which would have come to such lawin an action to recover for personal injuries ful issue respectively to my other children alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff share and share alike to and for their own use through the negligence of the defendant. The forever, and in the event of such other chilcomplaint was dismissed solely on the ground dren dying leaving issue, the issue of such deof the insufficiency of the notice of claim, the ceased child or children shall take per stirpes material portion of which read as follows: the share which would have fallen to the par"Please take notice that I, Rose E. Tynan, ent if living." A son. Frank, subsequently * have a claim against the city of New died leaving an adopted daughter but no issue. York for personal injuries sustained by me Thereafter another son, Reuben, died leaving at the northeast corner of Flush no issue. The question was whether the reing avenue and Garden street, in front of the mainder to Frank, limited on the life of Reupremises 844 Flushing avenue in the borough ben, vested in Frank on the death of his mothof Brooklyn, city of New York, by being thrown er and passed to his adopted daughter as his or caused to fall by reason of the defective, only next of kin. The surrogate held that imimproper, unsafe, and unsuitable condition of mediately upon the death of the testatrix, Rhothe crosswalk, pavement or sidewalk." Theo- da E. Hoyt, Reuben M. Hoyt took a life interdore H. Lord and Arthur K. Wing. both of est in the fund left in trust for his benefit, New York City. for appellant. William P. and Jesse Hoyt, Isabel Hoyt Bangs and Frank Burr, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Wil- R. Hoyt each took a vested remainder in such liam B. Carswell, of New York City, of coun- fund, subject to be divested by the birth of issel), for respondent. sue to Reuben; and. Reuben having died without issue, these three interests were never divested, and, upon the death of Frank R. Hoyt, his vested interest passed to his next of kin. Howard Mansfield and Lucius H. Beers, both of New York City, for appellant Bangs. William W. Scrugham, of Yonkers, for appellants Leslie and others. Charles W. McKelvey, of New York City, for respondent United States Trust Co. Marshall B. Clarke and Samuel T. Carter, Jr., both of New York City, for respondent Hoyt.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE. HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CARDOZO, J., dissents.

UNION BANK OF BROOKLYN, Respondent, v. FLEITMANN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 5, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial De

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.

CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, | Jno. Williams, Incorporated, be compelled to and CRANE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, C. J., and MCLAUGHLIN, J., not sitting.

withhold from the salary of its employé the sum of $12 per week, and pay the same to the plaintiff. The foundation for this demand was a judgment of divorce with $12 per week aliUNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW mony allowed, service of a copy of the judgYORK, Respondent, v. DE CHEFDEBIEN, ment upon the defendant Valentine, nonpayAppellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New ment of alimony, return of execution unsatisYork. April 30, 1918.) Motion to dismiss an fied, punishment of the defendant Valentine appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Di- for contempt in failing to pay, and commitment vision of the Supreme Court of the First Judi- to the county jail in consequence and discharge cial Department (180 App. Div. 186, 167 N. Y. therefrom by virtue of provisions of statute. Supp. 620), entered December 26, 1917, which The Special Term held that the plaintiff was modified, and affirmed as modified, a judgment limited to garnishee proceedings under section of Special Term in an action for an account-1391 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A. Walking and to obtain, a construction of the will of er Otis, of New York City, for appellant. IgJohn R. Peters, deceased. The motion was natius A. Scannell, of Brooklyn, and John K. made upon the ground that the judgment ap- M. Ewing, of New York City, for respondents. pealed from was not a final judgment and that PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, withpermission to appeal had not been obtained. out costs. John De Witt Warner, of New York City, for the motion. Achilles H. Kohn and William H. Milholland, both of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

VAN KEUREN et al. v. DWIGHT DIVINE & SONS et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 22, 1918.) Appeal from an order UNITED STATES TRUST CO. OF NEW of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court YORK v. HOYT et al. (Court of Appeals of in the Third Judicial Department (179 App. New York. April 2, 1918.) Appeal from a Div. 509, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1049), entered July judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su- 18, 1917, affirming an award of the State Inpreme Court in the First Judicial Department dustrial Commission under the Workmen's (173 App. Div. 930, 158 N. Y. Supp. 1133), en- Compensation Law. On December 24, 1915, tered April 10, 1916, affirming a judgment of George Van Keuren was employed as a cutler Special Term construing a certain deed of trust by Dwight Divine & Sons who were engaged in and directing distribution. The deed of trust the cutlery manufacturing business at Ellenville, provided that upon the death of the life benefi-N. Y. On that date, while engaged in lifting

ciary the principal should be divided amongst his next of kin. The said beneficiary died without issue and the question litigated on the accounting was whether an adopted daughter of a deceased brother was entitled to share in the said fund. The trial court held that by virtue of the adoption she became next of kin to the life beneficiary and under the terms of the trust deed entitled to share in the principal upon his death. Howard Mansfield and Lucius H. Beers, both of New York City, for appellant Bangs, William W. Scrugham and Anson Baldwin, both of Yonkers, for appellants Hoyt et al. William A. W. Stewart and Charles W. McKelvey, both of New York City, for respondent United States Trust Co. Marshall B. Clarke and Samuel T. Carter, Jr., both of New York City, for respondent Hoyt.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, C. J., and MCLAUGHLIN, J., not sitting.

VALENTINE, Appellant, v. JNO. WIL LIAMS, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 19, 1918.) Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 884, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1116), entered July 3, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendants for judgment on the pleadings. The former wife of the defendant Valentine sought a decree in equity that the defendant Valentine be restrained from receiving for the time being more than one-half of Lis salary, and that the defendant Jno. Williams, Incorporated, be enjoined from paying its employé more than one-half of his salary during the same time, until there has been accumulated a sum sufficient to satisfy the amount due the plaintiff for accrued alimony under a judgment of divorce heretofore secured; and that thereafter the defendant

a box of knives at his bench, it was alleged that the employé fell and struck his neck against a vise. He immediately stopped workplaced in the care of a doctor. There were ing and was sent home by his employer and the blow or contact is said to have occurred. no visible signs of injury at the point where On January 17, 1916, about 3 weeks after the event just related, he returned to work. He alleged injury to the neck. After working for was then apparently entirely well from the 21 days he quit because of weakness and never worked again. He died on October 7, 1916, of tuberculosis of the lungs. The State Industrial Commission found that Van Keuren was suffering from tuberculosis although such condition had not been known to him or any one else prior to the time of the accident; that the blow in his neck and chest caused an internal strain to his lung and aggravated a and caused his death as aforesaid. E. Clyde dormant tuberculosis, so that it became acute Sherwood, William B. Davis, and Amos H. Stephens, all of New York City, for appellants. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

VETAULT, Respondent, v. KENNEDY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 5, 1918.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (178 App. Div. 228, 165 N. Y. Supp. 203), entered May 25, 1917, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff. The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment appealed from was not legally docketed. Harry G.. Stephens, of Easthampton, L. I., for the motion. John Thomas Smith, of New York City, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

VOGEL, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL a prior order of said Appellate Division which RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of reversed an order of Special Term overruling a New York. Jan. 29, 1918.) Appeal from a demurrer to the complaint and sustained such judgment entered September 28, 1915, upon an demurrer. Flora L. Vose recovered judgments order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme against Joseph C. Conkling, administrator with Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (170 the will annexed of Ann M. Miller, for the defiApp. Div. 935, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1149), reversing ciency upon the foreclosure of two mortgages a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a executed in the name of his predecessor, Maria verdict, and directing a dismissal of the com- L. Conkling, administratrix with the will anplaint in an action to recover for personal in- nexed, upon leasehold premises owned by the juries alleged to have been sustained by plain- testatrix, and sues to subject real estate owned tiff through the negligence of defendant. The by said testatrix to a lien for the balance of accident in which plaintiff sustained his injuries the debt created, not by the testatrix, but by occurred on Fillmore avenue, near Main street, her administratrix with the will annexed. John in Buffalo, at about 9 o'clock at night. He had Brooks Leavitt and N. Otis Rockwood, both boarded a Fillmore Avenue car, which did not of New York City, for appellant. Edgar J. complete its route, but stopped short on Fill- Nathan and Alfred H. Cumbers, both of New more avenue, near its intersection with Main York City, for respondents. street. Plaintiff was given a transfer entitling him to continue his ride on the next northbound Fillmore Avenue car. While waiting for the car to come along, he stepped out into HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, the street and looked back' southerly along Fill-POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. MCLAUGHLIN, J., not sitting. more avenue to see if he could see a car approaching. He stood there a few moments, and then was struck in the back by a car which turned in from Main street to Fillmore avenue, receiving the injuries complained of. The Ap-1918.) Appeal from a judgment, entered Janpellate Division held that the plaintiff was negligent as matter of law. Henry W. Killeen and Charles F. Boine, both of Buffalo, for appellant. Dana L. Spring, of Buffalo, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J.. and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. CUDDEBACK, J., not voting.

VOLLMERS v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 19, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (180 App. Div. 60, 167 N. Y. Supp. 426), entered November 13, 1917, which reversed an award of the State Industrial Commission made under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67), and dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimant's husband, when he met with the accident which caused his death, was employed by the railroad as a plumber in inspection and repair of a passenger station at Hillsdale, then in use by the railroad as an instrumentality of interstate commerce, and that, therefore, the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [Comp. St. 1916. §§ 8657-8665]) exclusively prescribed and limited the rights and liabilities of the parties. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant. Robert E. Whalen, of Albany, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order of Appellate Division reversed and determination of the State Industrial Commission affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court, on the authority of Shanks v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 214 N. Y. 413. 108 N. E. 644, Ann. Cas. 1916E. 467: Id.. 239 U. S. 556, 36 Sup. Ct. 188. 60 L. Ed. 436, L. R. A. 1916C, 797; Gallagher v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 180 App. Div. 88. 167 N. Y. Supp. 480; 222 N. Y. 649, 119 N.

E. 1044.

HISCOCK, C. J.. and CRANE. COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

VROMAN et al. v. FISH, County Judge, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 26,

Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth uary 22, 1918, upon an order of the Appellate Judicial Department (170 N. Y. Supp. 421), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint. By chapter 202 of the Laws of 1917, entitled "An act to amend the election law in relation to commissioner of elections in Niagara county," the defendants were commanded to meet within five days after the act took effect and appoint a commissioner of elections for Niagara county, which according to the provisions of the act would effect a removal of the plaintiffs from their office as members of the board of elections of said county. Thereafter and before the expiration of said period of five days the plaintiffs commenced this action. The complaint alleged that said law was a local law, and violated sections 16 and 18 of article 3 of the Constitution; also that it was a special city law, and violated section 2 of article 12 thereof, in that it was not submitted to the mayors of the cities in said county, and was therefore unconstitutional; that the plaintiff's were about to suffer an irreparable injury-and prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out the mandates of the law. The Special Term held the act to be unconstitutional and granted an injunction. Alfred W. Gray, of Niagara Falls, for appellants. A. A. Bradley, of Lockport, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. POUND, J., absent.

WALLACE, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF CANANDAIGUA, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 26, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (153 App. Div. 938, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1147), entered November 27, 1912, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the mainteThe complaint alleged that while the plaintiff was passing along Bristol street in the village of Canandaigua, riding in a carriage hitched to a horse which the plaintiff was driving, the horse became frightened at a large stone or boulder located on said street at a point where

VOSE, Appellant, v. CONKLING et al., Re-nance by the defendant of a public nuisance. spondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 5, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (163 App. Div. 956, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered July 9, 1914, affirming a final judgment entered upon

Bristol street joins another street extending | est and penalties, as a lien against the premnortherly from Bristol street; that the plain- ises covered by the plaintiffs' mortgage. The tiff's carriage was upset, and plaintiff thrown plaintiffs in this action sought to have the lien to the ground, and received the injuries com- declared invalid as to their mortgage, on the plained of. The defendant contended that the ground of equitable estoppel, claiming that they boulder in question was a public monument and changed their position in reliance upon the did not constitute a nuisance. John Colmey statements made by the city of New York in and P. H. Leahy, both of Canandaigua, for ap- its tax records, to the effect that there were pellant. Horace W. Fitch, of Canandaigua, for no tax liens upon the premises. William P. respondent. Burr, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Wil. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg-liam H. King and Addison B. Scoville, both of ment absolute ordered against appellant on the New York City, of counsel), for appellant. stipulation, with costs in all courts. Nathan D. Stern, of New York City, for respondents.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

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

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

WEAVER, Respondent, v. TRAVER, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 5, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the WENZEL, Appellant, v. PATRICK RYAN Third Judicial Department (170 App. Div. 929, CONST. CORP., Respondent. (Court of Ap154 N. Y. Supp. 1149), entered July 9, 1915, peals of New York. April 2, 1918.) Appeal modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment from a judgment, entered October 18, 1915, upin favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in on an order of the Appellate Division of the Suan action to recover for alleged malpractice. preme Court in the Second Judicial DepartDefendant is a physician and surgeon. He per- ment (169 App. Div. 357, 154 N. Y. Supp. 809), formed a double abdominal operation upon reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, enterplaintiff in the Albany Hospital, November 13, ed upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the 1912, removing the appendix, removing gall- complaint in an action to recover for the death stones from the gall bladder, and draining the of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been ocsame. On September 2, 1913, a thread pre-casioned through the negligence of the defendsented itself through the unclosed sinus, and a physician, drawing upon it, removed a gauze tampon such as had been used in the abdominal operation. Plaintiff had a verdict for alleged negligence on defendant's part in leaving the tampon in the abdomen and in failing thereafter to discover its presence and remove it. Charles B. Sullivan, of Albany, for appellant. Andrew J. Nellis and Stephen J. Daring, both of Albany, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

WEIL et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 26, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment, entered September 14, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 80, 166 N. Y. Supp. 221), reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiffs enjoining the defendant from taking any proceedings to enforce a lien for taxes on certain property in the borough of Manhattan, for the years 1906-1911, inclusive, and adjudging that the lien of the mortgage of the plaintiffs is superior to the lien of the taxes of the city for said years. It appears that from the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive, the premises covered by the mortgage, together with certain adjoining premises were in each year duly assessed for taxes as one undivided lot, and during those years the taxes upon the entire lot, including the premises covered by the mortgage, were duly paid and entered as paid upon the books and records of the receiver of taxes. The taxes during each of these years 1906 to 1911 were assessed to and paid by one William Rowland, the owner of the other portion of the undivided lot, and in the year 1912 the defendant, city of New York, upon discovering that the taxes had been paid by Rowland upon the whole lot in error, refunded to Rowland the amount apportioned to the premises owned by the mortgagor and charged the same, amounting to $1,620.27, plus inter

ant, his employer. Defendant was a contractor doing certain concrete work upon a bridge across the East River and moved its material

over a

brakeman in its employ, was caught between narrow gauge railway. Plaintiff, a two cars and received injuries resulting in his death. The Appellate Division held that the evidence conclusively established that it was not only unnecessary for the decedent to have remained between the cars when directing the engineer to back up, but exceedingly and manifestly careless; that if the conditions and manner of operating the train were such as to charge the defendant with negligence in furnishing a chain and directing its use to couple the cars, the decedent was plainly guilty of contributory negligence, for he possessed all the knowledge that his employer had. John M. Ward, of New York City, for appellant. Clyde Sherwood and Amos H. Stephens, of New York City, for respondent.

E.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

WHITE et al., Appellants, v. VOORHIS_et al., Board of Elections of City of New York, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1918.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (168 N. Y. Supp. 1134), entered February 9, 1918, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying upon the merits, and as a matter of law, an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the board of elections of the city of New York to hold special elections for members of Congress of the United States in the Twenty-First and the Twenty-Second congressional districts respectively on the metes and bounds of the lines prescribed and enacted by chapter 890 of the Laws of 1911, instead of chapter 799 of the Laws of 1917. Robert L. Luce, Albert R. Lesinsky, Ellwood M. Rabenold, and James A. Foley, all of New York City, for appellants. William P. Burr, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Terence Farley, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (Alfred L. Beck