Page images
PDF
EPUB

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Di-, tindings of fact made by the surrogate, and vision, Second Department.

particularly the following: In the Matter of the judicial settlement of "(17). That the ‘Book of Declarations of Mort: the account of the Union Trust Company of gages' is kept in said transfer department and New York, as Trustee, etc., of Charles F. of all declarations which have been made on ac

locked in a safe at night. It contains a record Hotřman, deceased. The account was contesto count of any given mortgage and the full title ed by Rosalie A. Avery and Joseph L. Bour- with the registration of the declaration of owndette. From an order of the Appellate Divi-ership of parts of mortgages held by said trust

company for sundry trusts. sion (170 App. Div. 953, 155 N. Y. Supp. 1145),

“(18) That immediately after said declaraaffirming a decree of the Surrogate's Court of tions are completed, signed, and entered, records Kings County (86 Misc. Rep. 392, 149 N. Y. S. are made in a memorandum book labeled 'Sched324), overruling objections of contestants to ule of Mortgages in Trust,' which is kept in the

trust department in the said trust company, and the account, contestants appeal. Affirmed. which contains a record of all mortgages held D-Cady Herrick, of New York City, for by said trust company for several trusts, and

gives a description of each mortgage and shows appellants. Perry D. Trafford, of New York the several trusts for which it is held. City, for respondent

"(25) That the life beneficiaries of each trust are always notified by letter by said trustee of

investments and of changes in investments at CHASE, J. The last will of Charles F. the time they are made, being given full state Hoffman created several trusts and namedments thereof, which show any difference in the the respondent, the Union Trust Company principal or income, and on whose accounts monof New York, the trustee thereof. The ap- recapitulating all the mortgages, are sent to the

eys are paid or collected. Principal accounts, pellants have a reversionary interest in the life beneficiaries at regular intervals dependent principal of said trusts, and they have fled upon any important changes which are made, objections to the form and manner in which and to the remaindermen if they wish them.

"(26) That from the notices of investments certain of the trust investments have been and changes of investments which are always made.

sent by said trustee to the life beneficiaries of The trust investments to which objections said trusts, the ownership of any mortgage or are made by the appellants herein are invest- share in mortgage held for such trusts can be

established." ments previously made upon bonds and mort

(1) Declarations of trust when full, comgages taken in the name of the trust complete, and open to inspection in a public ofpany. It has been the practice of the trust fice, or where they are full and complete and company to use the money of several trusts in the possession of the parties interested held by it as trustee, whether created by one in the investments, so that the rights of the or several instruments, to loan on bonds and several persons or trusts therein can be fulmortgages given as security for such loans. ly established thereby, are sufficient to anIt has also been its practice to take such swer all objections made upon an accountbonds and mortgages in its name and in its ing to the form of the investments theretoown right. The amount of the investment so fore made of the trust funds. The decree taken by it in its own right is then distribut- upon an accounting in such a case rests upon ed among the various trusts by charging the fact that declarations of trusts have been against such trusts on the books of the trust actually made and delivered, and not in apcompany the amount of money which it then proval of the original or other investments determines or has determined as a part of made in the individual name of the trustee. the transaction in making the loan to use [2] The advantages that are frequently to from each of the several trusts so combined be secured by combining trust funds to make in making the loan. Such shares and also a large and more satisfactory investment parts of such shares are frequently, and from than can be made of the funds of one trust time to time transferred from one trust to without combination are of sufficient imanother by entries upon the books of the portance and value to the several trust funds trust company. In the account filed herein to overcome any disadvantage that may arise the trust company credited itself with certain from the fact that the several owners of the Investments on bonds and mortgages which investment may thereafter differ in the matstand in its name and are held by it either ter of handling the same. Trust funds have entirely for one trust, or in shares for several been, from time to time, combined for investtrusts. The following item from the accountment with satisfactory results, and the pracillustrates the form of the investments to tice is generally recognized as proper for a which objections are made.

trustee. 11 Ruling Case Law, 143; Barry "One share in $30,000 bond and mortgage, v. Lambert, 98 N. Y, 300, 50 Am. Rep. 677. Max Teichler to Union Trust Company of New

[3] When trust or other funds are combinYork on 159 Rivington street, New York City, dated June 16, 1911, and maturing July 1, 1918, ed for a single investment the instrument at 5%, interest due January and July 1st.' $10,- acknowledging and securing the investment 000."

or some contemporaneous instrument executThe decree in this case was made as ap-ed by those to be bound thereby should show pears from the opinion of the surrogate (much the true owners thereof and the interests of which we commend), not because the Sur- therein of the several persons or trusts whose rogate's Court approved the form in which funds have been combined in making the in

The trust company in this case has, wholly may be payable to bearer, and consequently for its own convenience, invested different lack any stamp of ownership by the trust. trust funds in bonds and mortgages in its While this is so of securities payable to bearname and in its own right, without always er, the lack of any stamp of ownership on executing and delivering a contemporaneous such securities arises from the peculiarity trust instrument. The interest from time to of the investment, and it does not affect time of the several persons or trusts in the the rule in regard to investments that can investments has been made to appear from properly be made distinctive and bear upon and be established by its books of account their face evidence of their ownership. and the records and papers on file with itself, [6] The effect of investing trust securities a private corporation, and upon informal in the name of a trust company and in its notices subsequently given to those interested own right is the same as if the trust company therein. The manner of keeping the trust took the trust fund as a deposit, leaving its funds is more fully shown by a typical page investment and the account relating thereto from the record in connection with the state wholly to its bookkeeping and the form ment in the account as quoted above. The adopted by it for keeping its accounts. Such Max Teichler mortgage was given June 16, holding of a trust fund does not outwardly 1911. The page relating to the Max Teichler distinguish the funds held by it as trustee mortgage mentioned is as follows:

from the funds of individual depositors with

Registration of declarations of ownership of parts of mortgages held by Union Trust Company of New York for sundry accounts:

No. of ApporDate. Mortgage. Amount.

Property.

Trust.

tion. June 20, 1912 X12 $30,000 Max Teichler, 159 Rivington St. 1223 $10.000

1221 10.000

1227 7.500 June 25, 1912

66

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

(Opposite the second and third items in the last column above is the following :)

Date.
June 25, 1912:

Transferred or Terminated.
To No. 1227..

1289. June 27, 1913. .

::TO 1100...

1289.

$7,500 2,500

1,500 1,000

The typical "statement of investments” | the trust company. Such manner of investmade to Miss Margaret Hoffman is dated ing a trust fund violates the long-established June 21, 1911. The dates included in the rule that a trustee should invest trust funds "Registration of declarations of ownership,” | in the name of the trustee as such, and also quoted above, are each subsequent to the the rule that trust funds should, at all times, giving of the mortgage, and the date of the be kept, so far as reasonably possible, in informal statement to Miss Hoffman is sub- the name of the trust, so that they can be sequent to the date of each of the mortgages identified, distinguished, and followed by all mentioned in such statement.

persons interested therein. Although trust [4, 5] It has been quite universally held funds do not lose their character as such that a trustee should not invest trust funds when invested by a trustee in his own name, in his own name. Such rule of law should yet when they are so invested, their characnot be abandoned, qualified, or in any way ter as such not infrequently has to be estabimpaired. If an individual trustee should lished by a suit at law. continuously and intentionally invest trust It would not have been necessary to comfunds in his individual name, his conduct in mence the action of Barry v. Lambert, supra, so doing would meet with condemnation by had the mortgage under consideration in that the courts. There is no difference between a case shown the true ownership of the moneys corporate trustee and an individual trustee loaned. The plaintiff was compelled to mainin its or his duty in respect to investments. tain the action to identify and establish her Trust funds should not only be kept inde interest in the mortgage. pendent of individual and other trust funds, [7] The identity of investment of trust but the investments thereof should, so far as funds should not, when otherways reasonably possible, be clearly defined, and at all times possible, be wholly dependent upon the constamped with the individual trust to which tinuance of rules relating thereto by corpothey severally belong. It is suggested that rate trustees or the accuracy and honesty of corporate or municipal bonds in which a bookkeepers and employés. trustee 18 authorized to invest trust funds It appears that the trust company when

foreclosing a mortgage so held by it does so in its own right, treating it at least as BAKER, Appellant, V. MAGUIRE et al., Reproperty the legal title to which is absolutely December 12, 1916). Appeal from an order of

spondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. and unqualifiedly in it.

the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in [8] The order of the Appellate Division af- the First Judicial Department (171 App. Div. fects only transactions wbich have been re- 1916, which reversed an order of Special Term

216, 157 N. Y. Supp. 293), entered February 14, ported to the beneficiaries, and for that rea- granting a motion for an alternative writ of son should be affirmed, with costs to respond- mandamus directing the respondents to rescind ent payable out of the estate.

a resolution transferring the petitioner, a janitor engineer in the department of education, from

one school to another at a probably reduced salWILLARD BARTLETT, C. J. (concurring ary and to reinstate him in the school from in part). I concur with everything said in hich he was transferred or to show cause why

the command of the writ should not be obeyed. the opinion of our Brother CHASE, except John E. O'Brien, of New York City, for appelhis conclusion that the order under review lant. Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of New should be affirmed. If his views are correct York City (Charles McIntyre and Terence Far. -and I think they are—the parties objecting ley, both of New York City, of counsel), for re

spondents. to the account are entitled to have those

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, views carried into effect. This can only be on the ground that the proceeding is against the done by a modification of the order appealed wrong party. from. I, therefore, vote to modify the order WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., CHASE, so as to require the respondent to alter the COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDO form of the investments of the trust fund Zo, and POUND, JJ., concur. so as to conform to the practice approved in the opinion of CHASE, J., and, as thus modi

BALDWIN et al., Appellants, v. BAY REALfied, to affirm.

TY CO., et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals

of New York. Dec. 15, 1916.) Appeal from a COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CAR- judgment of the Appellate Division of the SuDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur

with preme Court in the Second Judicial Department CHASE, J. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., 169 App: Div: 941, 153 N. Y. Supp. 886), en

tered July 8, 1915, affirming a judgment in faconcurs in part in memorandum.

vor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of

the complaint by the court on trial at Special Order affirmed.

Term. The action is one to have declared void a conveyance by the defendant, the Bay Realty Company, of a tract of land at Brighton Beach, substantially all its property, to the Brighton Beach Racing Association, on the ground that such transfer was prohibited by section 28 of

the Stock Corporation Law (Consol. Laws, c. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS 59). Plaintiff's testator held a certificate of

stock of the Bay Realty Company indorsed in blank as collateral for a loan. The complaint

alleged that the Bay Realty Company owned ALSBERG, Respondent, V. NEWGENT et

the land; that it did not receive the considDecember 28, 1916). Appeal from a judgment, ed was all the property of the corporation; that al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. eration for the transfer to the Brighton Beach

Racing Association; that the property conveyentered July 21, 1915, upon an order of the the deed of October 26, 1908, was void, being Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the transfer of all the property of the corporathe First Judicial Department (169 App. Div. tion, and because the corporation did not re936, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1109), affirming an inter- ceive the consideration, and that it was in eflocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered | fect a withdrawal of 'the capital of the Bay upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Realty Company; that thereby the collateral Term in an action brought for a dissolution of held by the plaintiffs and their testator decreasthe partnership between the plaintiff and de- ed in value and they, therefore, ask that the fendants, and for an accounting in respect of transfer be set aside. Martin Conboy and the partnership, business upon the ground that Leonard D. Baldwin, both of New York City, the business bad sustained a loss of a substantial for appellants. James M. Gray and Lynn C. part of its capital, and to continue the busi: Norris, both of Brooklyn, for respondents. ness would result in a greater loss and probably in the loss of the entire capital, that the de PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with fendants had after demand failed to contribute costs. their share of such losses, and that the business WILLARD BARTLETT, O. J., and CHASE, could no longer be carried on at a profit. The COLLIN. CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOdefendants, in addition to denying these allega-zo, and POUND, JJ., concur. tions of the complaint, interposed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff had excluded defendants from possession of partnership books and assets, and had, by the commencement of this ac

BRIDGES, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN tion, committed a breach of the partnership UNION GAS COMPANY, Appellant. (Court agreement. George H. D. Foster, of New York of Appeals of New York. Oct, 10, 1916.) MoCity, for appellants. Isaac N. Jacobson, of New tion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of York City, for respondent.

the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Supp. 186), entered July 17, 1916, affirming a

in the First Judicial Department (160 N. Y. costs.

judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon & WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS-verdict in an action to recover for legal seryCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, ices. The motion was made upon the grounds

unanimous; that no questions of law were in WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISvolved and that the appeal was frivolous. Mey- COCK, CHASE, COLLIN, OUDDEBACK, er Nebenzahl, of Far Rockaway, for the motion. HOGAN, and POUND, JJ., concur. Herbert C. Smyth, of New York City, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

BURKE, Appellant, y. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals

of New York. Nov. 21, 1916.) Appeal from In re BROOKLYN TRUST CO. (Court of a judgment, entered December 26, 1914, upon Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal an order of the Appellate Division of the Sufrom an order of the Appellate Division of the preme Court in the Fourth Judicial DepartSupreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 946, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1078), ment (158 N. Y. Supp. 1109), entered April 14, sustaining defendant's exceptions ordered to be 1916, which affirmed a decree of the Kings heard in the first instance by the Appellate DiCounty Surrogate's Court settling the account vision, setting aside the verdict in favor of plainof the trustee herein and overruling objections tiff and directing judgment in favor of defendthat the charges for maintenance and expenses ant in an action to recover for personal injuries of certain real property were improperly charged alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff against income, and that the proceeds of a pol- through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff icy of fire insurance received by the trustee while waiting at a railroad crossing for the should be apportioned between principal and in- passing of a freight train looked towards the come. David Joyce, of Brooklyn, for appellant. rear and saw the lights that are usually displayFrancis L. Archer, of Brooklyn, for respondent. ed on the sides of the rear car or "caboose" of

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. a freight train, the intervening freight cars be

HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK. HO- Jing dark. Immediately after the lighted caboose GAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ.,, concur. his journey across the track and was struck by

had got past the sidewalk the plaintiff continued WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent.

a dark caboose attached to and immediately following the lighted one, was whirled under the

wheels of that dark car and received the injuBROWN, Appellant, v. TOWN of EVANS et port, for appellant. Maurice C. Spratt and H.

ries complained of, George D. Judson, of Lockal., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New W. Huntington, both of Buffalo, for respondent. York. Dec. 15, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from or to affirm a judgment of the Ap PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the costs. Fourth Judicial Department (164 App. Div. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J. and HIS967, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1073), entered October 14, COCK, CHASE, COLLIN. CUDDEBACK, and 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defend: HOGAN, JJ., concur. POUND, J., not sitting. ants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The motion was made upon the ground that the administrator of the estate of Elizabeth T. Brown, deceased, had died and no one had been appointed to suc

CADMAN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW ceed him. nor has any person been substituted in YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New place of the plaintiff named herein. Eugene M. Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Divi

Nov. 28. 1916.) Motion to dismiss an Bartlett, of Buffalo, for the motion.

sion of the Supreme Court in the Second JudiPER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with cial Department (160 N, Y. Supp. 1125), entercosts, and $10 costs of motion.

ed August 2, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action

to recover damages to personal property from BRUCK, Respondent. v. NEW YORK CENT: the clogging of defendant's sewers.

water alleged to have been occasioned through

The mo& H. R. R. CO., appellant. (Court of Appeals tion was made upon the ground that the Apof New York. Dec. 28. 1916.) Appeal from an pellate Division had unanimously decided that order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme there was evidence sufficient to sustain the verCourt in the Third Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 621, 151 N. Y. Supp. 286), entered dict. Percival C. Smith, of New York City, for November 10. 1914, reversing a judgment in the motion... Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and New York City (Thomas F. Magner and Frank granting a new trial in an action to recover for Julian Price, both of Brooklyn, of counsel), opthe death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have

posed. been occasioned through the negligence of the PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 defendant, his employer. The testator, while costs. employed as a fire cleaner in one of defendant's round houses, was run over by an engine and died from the injuries received. The answer de CALKINS, Respondent, v. HART, Appellant. nied any negligence on the part of the defend-(Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1916.) ant, alleged that the accident which caused the

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument dedeath of plaintiff's intestate was occasioned by nied, with $10 costs. See 219 N. Y. 145, 113 N. reason of his own negligence or the negligence E. 785. of a fellow servant, and that his death was due to one of the risks incident to his employment, obvious, well known and assumed by him, and further alleged that the cause of action. in so al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York,

CALLIGARI, Respondent, V. SARTORI et far as the sole next of kin was concerned. had Dec. 15, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal been satisfied and released. Amos Van Etten, from a 'judgment of the Appellate Division of of Kingston, for appellant., N. Frank O'Reilly; the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial DeJohn T. Loughran, and William H. Grogan, all partment (174 App. Div. 102, 160 N. Y. Supp; of Kingston, for respondent.

931), entered October 17, 1916, modifying and PER CURIAM. Order of Appellate Division affirming as modified a judgment in favor of reversed. and judgment of Trial Term affirmed, plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on on the dissenting opinion of Smith, P. J., below, trial at Special Term in an action to set aside with costs in the Appellate Division and in this an alleged fraudulent conveyance. The motion court.

was made upon the ground that the Court of

Appeals had no jurisdiction of the appeal. Louis SECURITIES CO. et al. (TOLAND et al., InJ. Altkrug, of Brooklyn, for the motion. David terveners.) (Court of Appeals of New York, J. Wagner, of New York City, opposed. Nov. 3, 1916.) Appeal from Supreme Court,

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal Appellate Division, First Department. Action dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. by the Chester County Guarantee Trust & Safe

Deposit Company and others as executors of
Ann W. Roberts, deceased, against the Securi-

ties Company and others, in which Edward D. CARBONE, Respondent, v. LOFT et al., Ap- Toland and others intervened. From a judg

(Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. ment of the Appellate Division (165 App. Div. 24, 1916.). Appeal from an order of the Appel. 329, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1010), modifying, and af. late Division of the Supreme Court in the Third firming as modified, a judgment for plaintiffs, Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. 1104); entered upon a decision of the court on trial entered July 5, 1916, which affirmed an award at Special Term, and dismissing the crossof the state industrial commission under the claim of the Equitable Securities Company Workmen's Compensation Law. Claimant while against the interveners for indemnity. with employed in a factory became involved in a judgment for that company against the Securiverbal exchange of insulting language with a ties Company, the Equitable Securities Comfellow employé, as a result of which the latter pany and the Securities Company appeal. Judg. violently assaulted claimant three-quarters of ment affirmed. Carl M. Owen and Winthrop an hour later. In defending himself from the H. Kellogg, both of New York City, for appelassault claimant sustained injuries. Edward lants. Marvin W. Wynne and John M. LowP. Mowton, of New York City, for appellants. rie, both of New York City, for respondents Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Chester County Guarantee Trust & Safe DeDeputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent. posit Co. and others. Reynolds D. Brown, of

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Philadelphia Pa., and Yorke Allen, of New

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS-York City, for respondents Toland and others. COCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with CARDOZO, JJ., concur. HOGAN, J., not vot-costs. ing.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS

COCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and CARLEY v. HARPER et al. (Court of Ap- for modification in accordance with the opin

POUND, JJ., concur. CARDOZO, J., votes peals of New York. Dec. 15, 1916.) "PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument de

ion of Ingraham, P. J., below. nied, with $10 costs. See 219 N, Y. 295, 114 N. E. 351.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

BROOKLYN & M. FERRY CO., Appellant. CASTLE et al., Appellants, v. ARMSTEAD, (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate DiNov. 21, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the vision of the Supreme Court in the First JuAppellate Division of the Supreme Court in the dicial Department (170 App. Div. 897, 154 N. Second Judicial Department (168 App. Div. 466, Y. Supp. 1115), entered August 3, 1915, affirm153 N. Y. Supp. 266), entered May 15, 1915, ing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered up; affirming a judgment in favor of defendant en: on a decision of the court on trial at Special tered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the Term in an action for an accounting in accourt at a Trial Term without a jury. Between cordance with the terms of a certain lease and September 6, 1910, and April 1, 1912, Henry D. amended lease of a ferry operated by the deLott and John Watt were, successively, the fendant between the borough of Manhattan and owners and entitled to possession of the premis- the borough of Brooklyn in the city of New es described in the complaint. On September York. The question presented to the court was 6, 1910, defendant made a contract for the pur- whether the ferry company was entitled to set chase of those premises with the then owner's up as a deduction in arriving at net profits, only agent, in the latter's name, but with the own- moneys actually paid out in cash, or whether er's knowledge and consent, paid $500 thereon, it was entitled, as it claimed, to set up as a and on September 15, 1910, moved into the deduction an expense in the nature of depreciapremises. On April 1, 1912, the defendant re- tion, even though that expense had not acscinded the contract and moved out, and there. tually been paid out in cash. A. S. Gilbert, after received back the $500, with interest. of New York City, for appellant. Lamar HarThe reasonable value of the occupancy of this dy, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Terence house, during that period, was $60 per month, Farley and Josiah A. Stover, both of New York and the claims against the defendant for occu- City), for respondent. pying it during that time have been assigned by the said owners to these plaintiffs. The

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. plaintiffs sue for the use and occupation of the premises from September 15, 1910, to April 1, WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS1912 (a period of a year and a half during which COCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, the defendant occupied and used the premises), HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JJ., concur. claiming that the rescission of the contract vitally changed the entire relations of the parties to it, and destroyed all rights under it from its date to its rescission. Frank E. Johnson, Jr.,

CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, and George W. Titcomb, both of Brooklyn. for SCHOENECK et al., Respondents. (Court of appellants. Edward H. Lockwood, of New York Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, 1916.) Appeal City, for respondent.

from an order of the Appellate Division of the SuPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with preme Court in the Third Judicial Department costs.

(159 N. Y. Supp. 1105), entered September 25,

1916, which affirned an order of Special Term HJSCOCK, CHASE. COLLIN, HOGAX denying a motion for a peremptory writ of CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. WIL mandamus requiring the state board of equal. LARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent.

ization of the state of New York to convene and prepare a

statement of the aggregate

amounts of assessments upon which the state CHESTER COUNTY GUARANTEE comptroller shall compute the state tax for

« PreviousContinue »