Page images
PDF
EPUB

New York City, for the motion. Joseph L GIBBS, Appellant, v. CONROY BROS., Re- Prager, of New York City, opposed. spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. PER CURIAM. Nov. 3, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal costs.

Motion denied, with $10 from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 937, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1123), GLOVER, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BANK entered June 25, 1915, which affirmed an order OF COMMERCE IN NEW YORK, Respondof the court at a Trial Term setting aside a ent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, verdict in favor of plaintiff and granting a new 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appeltrial in an action to recover for personal injuries late Division of the Supreme Court in the First alleged to have been sustained through the negli- Judicial Department (108 App. Div. 903, 152 N. gence of the defendant. The motion was made Y. Supp. 1113), entered April 16, 1915, affirming upon the ground of failure to file the required un a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon dertaking. James B. Henney, of New York City, an order of Special Term granting a motion by for the motion.

defendant for judgment in its favor upon the PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal pleadings in an action to recover dividends on dismissed, with costs, and $10 costs of motion. Defendant, among other defenses and avoidances,

certain shares of stock owned by the intestate. set up a prior judgment as a bar to this action. Plaintiff was required to reply to the various

defenses. Defendant thereupon moved for GIDEON et al., Appellants, v. HINDS, NO- judgment on the pleadings, upon the ground that BLE & ELDREDGÈ et al., Respondents. this action was barred by the judgment rendered (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 10, 1916.) in a previous action, which motion was granted. Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of George A. Honnecker, of New York City, for the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in appellant John Quinn, of New York City, for the First Judicial Department (172 App. Div. respondent. 478, 158 N. Y. Supp. 774), entered May 13, 1916,

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with affirming a judgment in favor of defendants en

costs. tered upon

an order of Special Term den ying plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the

HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN. pleadings, sustaining a demurrer to and di- CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. WILrecting a dismissal of the complaint.

The

LARD BARTLETT, C. J., not voting. motion was made upon the ground that no appeal lay to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Division, Roger Ilinds, of New York City, for the motion. Fred

GURSKY, Respondent, V. BLAIR et al., erick T. Kelsey, of New York City, opposed.

Appellanis. (Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 10, 1916.) PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 218 N. Y. 41, 112 N.

E. 431. GILLIGAN, Respondent, v. DE CANT, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap

In re HARRIS. (Court of Appeals of New pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the York. Dec. 5, 1916.) Appeal from an order Fourth Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 909, of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court 153 N. Y. Şupp. 1116), entered May 13, 1915, in the First Judicial Department (159 N. Y. affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enter- Supp. 1117), entered June 30, 1916, which af. ed upon a verdict in an action brought by the firmed a decree of the New York County Sur. trustee in bankruptcy of C. A. White & Co., rogate's Court settling the accounts of Edward a corporation, to recover $1,000, the alleged pur- 9: Harris as trustee under the will of Henry chase price of 10 shares of stock subscribed for Hilton, deceased. The appellants are two of by the defendant in the certificate of incorpora- the beneficiaries of the trust and claim that tion, claiming that the same was unpaid. The the trustees during a period of three years did answer alleged, among other defenses, that the not in their discretion see fit to pay out all the stock was paid in full. Thomas Burns, John income received by them; therefore, the unexConboy, and Edward W. Carroll, all of Water- pended income of that period belonged to them town, for appellant. Mervyn Mackenzie, of pro rata as two of the persons at tbat time preNew York City, for respondent.

sumptively entitled to the next eventual estate;

the fact that the said sum of unexpended inPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with come was later wholly applied by the trustees costs.

for the purpose of the trust is, they say, wholly HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, immaterial." Clifton P. Williamson, of New York CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. WIL | City, for appellant Hilton. Lyle Evans Mahan, LARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent.

Paul M. Herzog, and Arthur_s. Levy, all of
New York City, for appellant Forde. James S.
Darcy, of New York City, for respondent trus-

tee. James H. Hickey, of New York City, for GLOCKNER et al.. Respondents, v. GREAT respondent Hilton. EASTERN CASUALTY CO., Appellant. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1916.)

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOthe Appellate Division of the Supreme Court zo, and POUND, JJ., concur. in the First Judicial Department (159 V. Y. Supp. 1115), entered July 8, 1916, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict in an action to HATCH, Appellant, V. LAKE SHORE & recover upon a policy of fire insurance,

The M. S. RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals motion was made upon the grounds that no ques- of New York. Dec. 15, 1916.) Appeal from a tion of law was involved and that the appeal judgment oi the Appellate Division of the Suwas taken solely for purposes of delay. Charles preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department

tered April 15, 1915, affirming a judgment in resident and that the tax should have been asfavor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of sessed accordingly, and that there was impropthe complaint by the court at a Trial Term in erly deducted from the personal property of the an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's deceased within this state one-half of the total intestate alleged to have been occasioned through sum upon the theory that this one-half belonged the negligence of the defendant. Plaintiff's into the widow of the deceased under the Spanish testate was killed at the Lion street crossing of law as her gananciales or joint gains of the the defendant's railway tracks in the city of marriage; that as the deceased was a naturalizDunkirk, having been struck while attempting ed American citizen and a resident of New York, to pass over the crossing on foot by the defend the rights of his widow are fixed by the law of ant's train, the Twentieth Century Limited. the forum and not by the Spanish law. AlexThe trial court held that the plaintiff's intestate ander Otis, Schuyler C. Carlton, and Lafayette was guilty of contributory negligence as matter B. Gleason, all of New York City, for appellant. of law. Nelson J. Palmer, of Dunkirk, for ap- George W. Phillips, Jr., and Charles Stewart pellant. Thomas D. Powell, of Buffalo, for re- Davison, both of New York City, for respondspondent.

ents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. costs.

HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOWILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, GAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. COLLIN, CUDDEBACK,'and HOGAN, JJ.; WILLARD BARTLETT, C, J., 'absent. concur. CARDOZO, J., not voting. POUND, J., not sitting.

In re HERRMANN. (Court of Appeals of HEREND EEN, Appellant, v. WILSON et al., der of the Appellate Division of the Supreme

New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an orRespondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 28, 1916.). Appeal from a judgment of the Court in the First Judicial Department (172 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the App. Div. 907, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1128), entered Fourth Judicial Department (161 App. Div. I the New York County Surrogate's Court denying

January 28, 1916, which affirmed a decree of 910, 145 x. Y. Supp. 1126), entered May 15, probate to a writing propounded as the last 1914, modifying and affirming as modified a will of Magdalena Herrmann, deceased, upon the judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon an order of Special Term sustaining a demurrer ground that fraud or undue influence was exerand directing a dismissal of the complaint on the and Gustav Goodmann, both of New York City,

cised upon the testatrix. George Gordon Battle merits. The action is based upon a bond, signed and sealed by all of the defendants, the defend- Osborne, and John B. Quintin, all of New

for appellants. Gilbert D. Lamb, James W. ant Benton . Wilson, as principal, the others as sureties, and the condition of the same is as

York City, for respondents. follows: “Now, therefore, the condition of this PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. obligation is such that if the said Benton H. Wilson shall well and truly indemnify and save GAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ.,

HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HO. barmless the said Susan Bradnack from any and WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., 'absent.

concur. all liability, as the holder and owner of such shares of stock, to be purchased by her, and shall, within 60 days after demand, purcha se from the said Susan Bradnack at the par value HICKEY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. thereof, all of such shares of stock, and pay to & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Apthe said Susan Bradnack the par value of peals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Appeal such said shares in cash, then this obligation from a judgment, entered July, 23, 1914, upon shall be void, otherwise it shall remain in full an order of the Appellate Division of the Suforce and virtue.". The claim of the plaintiff, preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Departadministrator, is that the contract sued upon is ment (163 App. Div. 270, 148 N. Y. Supp. an original agreement for the joint and several 795), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff obligation to pay by all of the signatory parties entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal to the contract, which inures to the benefit of of the complaint in an action to recover for the representatives successively of Susan Brad the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have nack and Charles W. Edgerton. The defendants been occasioned through the negligence of the claim that the contract in suit is a special guar- defendant, his employer. The intestate was anty, which was made only for the benefit of killed in a head-on collision between two trains, Susan Bradnack and that the right to enforce on one of which he was employed as fireman. the same died with her. Eugene L. Dominick, The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of Buffalo, for appellant. M. F. Dirnberger, Jr., for the plaintiff on the ground that the collision and George A. Orr, both of Buffalo, for respond was caused either by a lack of care and attention ents.

or error of judgment upon the part of the enPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with gineer of one of the trains

for which the defendcosts.

ant was not liable, the accident occurring prior

to the passage of chapter 657 of the Laws of HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDE- 1906. James 0. Sebring, of Corning, for appelBACK, HOGAN, and POUND, JJ., concur. lant. Halsey Sayles, of Elmira, and John B. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent.

Stanchfield, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs. In re HERNANDEZ. (Court of Appeals of WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS. New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an or- COCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, der of the Appellate Division of the Supreme and POUND, JJ., concur. COLLIN, J., not Court in the First Judicial Department (172 sitting. App. Div. 467, 159 N. Y. Supp. 59), entered May 5, 1916, which affirmed a decree of the New York County Surrogate's Court dismissing an HORAN. Appellant, V. NEW YORK, N. H. appeal from a prior decree assessing a transfer & H. R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals tax upon the estate of Tirso M. y Hernandez, of New York. Nov. 28, 1916.) Motion to disdeceased. The surrogate fixed the tax upon the miss an appeal from an order of the Appellate theory that the deceased was a nonresident. Division of the Supreme Court in the second *The comptroller claims that the deceased was a | Judicial Department (171 App. Div. 180, 157

N. Y. Supp. 185), entered January 28, 1916, , McLoughlin, all of New York City, for rereversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff en spondent. tered upon a verdict and granting a new trial PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with in an action to recover for the death of plain- costs. tiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the defendant, his BACK, HOGAN, and POUND, JJ., concur.

HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN. CUDDEemployer. The motion was made upon the WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent. ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. J. W. Carpenter, of Brooklyn, for the motion. L. F. Fish, of New York City, opposed.

In re KINGS COUNTY TRUST CO. (Court PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Apcosts.

peal from an order of the Appellate Division

of the Supreme Court in tbe Second Judicial De

partment (169 App. Div. 966, 153 N. Y. In re JEFFRIES. (Court of Appeals of New Supp. 1122), entered May 15, 1916, which modi. York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order fied a decree of the Kings County Surrogate's of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Court settling the accounts of the executor and in the First Judicial Department (172 App. trustee under the will of Mary E. Lewis, by Div. 951, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered Jan-reducing an allowance to said executor and trusuary 3, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special tee of an amount agreed to be paid by it for Term denying a petition for a summary order counsel fees. George V. Brower, of Brooklyn, requiring the attorney to deliver to the petition

and William P. Maloney, of New York City, er certain promissory notes and interest collect for appellant. Otto Horwitz, Joseph H. Choate. ed thereon. The attorney claimed that the Jr., and Thomas T. Sherman, all of New York notes were indorsed to him and delivered in City, for respondents. payment for legal services rendered. In deny PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. ing the motion the court stated in the order: "This is not a case in which a peremptory or COCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK,

WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HISder may be made. should be litigated in the ordinary way." "Mer- HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JI., concur. vyn Mackenzie, of New York City, for appellant. Vance Hewitt and Enos S. Booth, both of New York City, for respondent.

LANE,_Respondent, V. LION BREWERY PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. OF NEW YORK CITY, Appellant. (Court HISCOCK,

of Appeals of New York. Dec. 15, 1916.) Ap CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial De

peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent.

partment (169 App. Div. 924, 153 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered July 12, 1915, affirming & judg

ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verKELLOGG, Appellant, v. KELLOGG. Re dict in an action to recover for the death of spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occaOct. 10, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal sioned through the negligence of the defendfrom a judgment, entered February 24, 1916,

ant. The intestate was run over by one of upon an order of the Appellate Division of the defendant's automobile trucks while attempting ment (169 App. Div. 395, 155 N. Y. Supp: 310), Grant 2. Fox, of New York

City, for appelSupreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart- to cross Thirty-Sixth street in the city of New reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee and directing

lant. Cornelius_J. Earley, Peter J. Brancto, a dismissal of the complaint. The motion was and Daniel J. Early, all of New York City, made upon the grounds that all questions of fact for respoadent. have been finally determined by the Appellate PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Division and that no questions were involved costs. which the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review. John D. Teller, of Auburn, for the

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, motion, Charles W. Andrews, of Syracuse, zo, and ÞOUND, JJ., concur.

COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOopposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

LASHER, Appellant, v. McDERMOTT, RE

spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. KELLY, Respondent, V. PENNSYLVANIA Oct. 10, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal TUNNEL & TERMINAL R. CO., Appellant, from a judgment of the Appellate Division et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial De 21, 1916.) Appeal from so much of a judg- partment (173 App. Div. 79, 158 N. Y. Supp. nient of the Appellate Division of the Supreme 708), entered May 4, 1916, affirming a judgCourt in the First Judicial Department (167 ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict App. Div. 898. 151 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered in an action to recover for services alleged to March 17, 1915, as affirmed a judgment in fa- have been rendered defendant's testatrix. The vor of plaintiff and against the defendant, ap. motion was made upon the grounds that the pellant, entered upon a verdict. The action is appeal was not taken within the prescribed time, to recover damages for the death of the plain- and that neither the required undertaking por tiff's intestate, a workman in the employment the return on appeal had been filed. Pierre E. of the Union Switch & Signal Company, which Du Bois, of Albany, for the motion. was engaged in installing signals and switches PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and apalong the line of the defendant, appellant, rail. peal disinissed, with costs and $10 costs of road, who, on his way home from his work motion. and riding at the invitation of a fellow workman upon a track velocipede, operated on the tracks of said defendant, appellant, was LENTILHON v. D'ARSCHOT et al. (Court run into and killed by one of its locomotives. of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1916.) Frank Verner Johnson and Amos H. Stephens, Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Diboth of New York City, for appellant. Edgar vision of the Supreme Court in the First Ju

Y. Supp. 1093), entered January 7, 1915, af- , defendant. The intestate while in the employ firming a judgment in favor of defendant, re of defendant fell from a signal tower and respondent, entered upon a verdict directed by ceived injuries resulting in his death. The comthe court in an action brought under section plaint alleged that defendant was negligent in 2653a of the Code of Civil Procedure to re failing to provide decedent with a reasonably voke probate of the will of Gaston d'Arschot, de safe place in which to work, viz., a reasonably ceased, upon the grounds of alleged lack of tes- safe signal tower for the performance of the tamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence. duties required of him in and about said tower. L. Laflin Kellogg, Alfred C. Petté, Charles K. The answer denied negligence and alleged as Carpenter, George P. Ingersoll, and Theodore F. a first affirmative defense that whatever dam. Humphrey, all of New York City, for appel- age or loss was received by the plaintiff was a lants. Robert Thorne, of New York City, for result of the contributory negligence of plainrespondent.

tiff's intestate and not of any negligence on the PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with part of the defendant; and for a second decosts.

fense that plaintiff's intestate was at the times

and place mentioned in the complaint in comWILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HIS- plete charge of the signal tower and, therefore, COCK, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, assumed the risk of his employment and that CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

whatever damages were sustained resulted from the risks of the occupation or from the negligence of plaintiff's intestate. Howard Cobb,

Mortimer L. SulliLOVAS et al., Respondents, v. INTERNA- of Ithaca, for appellant. TIONAL RY. CO. Appellant. (Court of Ap- van, of Elmira, for respondent. peals of New York. Oct. 10, 1916.) Motion PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with to dismiss_an appeal from a judgment of the costs. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the WILLARD BARTLETT, O. J., and COLFourth Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. LIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, 1125), entered June 1, 1916, affirming a judg- and POUND, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., ment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a ver- absent. dict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiffs' intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the defendant. MCNEIL LUMBER CO., Inc., respondent, vi The motion was made upon the ground that CHASE et al., Appellants. (Actions 1 & 2.) the exceptions were frivolous and the appeal (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, taken solely for purpose of delay. Joseph A. 1916.) Motion to dismiss appeals from two Wechter, of Buffalo, for the motion. Raymond judgments of the Appellate Division of the SuC. Vaughan, of Buffalo, opposed.

preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department PER CURIAM, Motion denied, without (159 Ņ. Y. Supp. 1126), entered July 12, 1916, costs.

affirming judgments in favor of plaintiff entered upon decisions of the court on trial at Spe

cial Term in actions to foreclose two mortIn re McDONALD et al., Appellants. (Court gages. The motion was made upon the grounds of Appeals of New York. Oct. 17. 1916.) Ap- that the Appellate Division had unanimously peal from an order of the Appellate Division decided that the facts were sufficient to sustain of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial the judgments, that the exceptions were frivoDepartment (159 N. Y. Supp. 1126), entered lous, and presented no question for review. May 26. 1916, which affirmed a decree of the Thomas C. Burke, of Buffalo, for the motion. Kinge County Surrogate's Court made on an Clark H. Timerman, of Buffalo, opposed. application under section 2615 of the Court of

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and apCivil Procedure, on behalf of certain of the heirs peals dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of at law and devisees under the last wills and motion. testaments of Thomas McDonald and Mary F. Clyne, deceased, for a construction of the wills of said deceased in so far as they relate to cer MCNELES, Respondent, v. BOARD OF tain real property described in the petition, and SUP'RS OF RENSSELAER COUNTY, Apfor injunctive relief as against the respondent pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. Edmond F. Clyne, restraining him from assert, 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appeling a claim to an estate for life in said reallate Division of the Supreme Court in the property. As to the latter will the sole ques- Third Judicial Department (173 App. Div. 411, tion in controversy was as to its containing a 159 N. Y. Supp. 1009), entered July 5, 1916, valid exercise of the power of appointment con- which reversed an order of Special Term denytained in the former. The decree appealed from ing a motion for a peremptory writ of mandaconstrued the will of said Thomas McDonald mus to compel the defendant to restore the peadversely to the interests of the petitioners. titioner, an honorably discharged veteran of William P. Pickett, of Brooklyn, for appel- the Spanish-American war, to the position of lants. Lewis C. Grover and Theodore Burg-laborer on the bridge between Troy and Cohoes. inyer, both of Brooklyn, for respondent.

and granted said motion. Herbert F. Rov, of PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Troy, for appellant. John J. Mackrell, of Troy. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS.

for respondent. COCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK HOGAN, PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN,

CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. McGOVERN, Respondent, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York Dec. 28. 1916.). Appeal from a In re MARTIN'S ESTATE. (Court of Apjudgment of the Appellate Division of the peals of New York. Oct. 17, 1916.) Appeal, Supreme Court in the Third Judicial De- by permission, from an order of the appellate partment (164 App. Div. 906, 148 N. Y. Division of the Supreme Court in the First Supp. 1128), entered July 14, 1914. affirm. Judicial Department (173 App. Div. 1, 158 ing a judgment in favor of plaintiff enter- N. Y. Supp. 915), entered May 15, 1916, which ed upon a verdict in an action to recover for reversed a decree of the New York County Sur. the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have rogate's Court adjudging that Frederick T been occasioned through the negligence of the Martin was not, at the time of his death, a

resident of the state of New York, and that his , Dec. 28, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment estate is not subject to taxation under the of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Transfer Tax Law of the state of New York. Court in the First Judicial Department (168 The following question was certified: “Is the App. Div. 905, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1128), enintangible property belonging to the estate of tered April 16, 1915, affirming a judgment the decedent subject to taxation under the in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict Transfer Tax Law upon a proper interpreta- directed by the court in an action upon a promtion of the word 'resident' as employed in that issory note alleged to have been executed by destatute?' John B. Pine, of New York City, fendant Stallo in his own name and also as for appellant. John B. Gleason, of New York attorney in fact for Alexander McDonald, since City, for respondent.

deceased. The defenses were failure of considPER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with eration and lack of power on the part of Stalcosts, on the ground that the question certified lo to sign the note for McDonald. "Nash Rockinvolves the determination of a question of wood. of Saratoga Springs, for appellants. Edfact. 217 N. Y. 601, 111 N. E, 211.

win M. Otterbourg, Charles A. Houston, and WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HIS. Edward B. Levy, all of New York City, for COCK, CHASE, CUDDEBÄOK, HOGAN, respondent. CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HIS. MARTIN, Respondent, v. CAMP et al., Ap- COCK, COLLIN (UDDEBACK. HOGAN, pellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. Nov. 28, 1916.)

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument or to amend remittitur denied, with $10 costs. In re MILLER. (Court of Appeals of New See 219 N. Y. 170, 114 N. E. 46.

York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart

ment (171 App. Div. 229, 157 N. Y. Supp. 360), In re MELICK. (Court of Appeals of New entered February 11, 1916, which affirmed a deYork. Oct. 17, 1916.) Appeal from an order cree of the New York County Surrogate's Court of the Appellate Divison of the Supreme Court denying the application of petitioner for pay: in the First Judicial Department (172 App. Div. ment to him of the income of a certain trust 538, 158 N. Y. Supp. 689), entered May 11, fund created by the will and codicil of Sarah 1916, which modified, and affirmed as modified, Akin, deceased, by which she bequeathed to her a decree of the New York County Surrogate's trustees $25,000, directing that they collect the Court settling the accounts of Harry C. W: income thereof,' and “in their discretion, and Melick as administrator of the estate of Jacob from time to time, to pay the whole of the net J. Brush, deceased. The question before the income arising therefrom either to my nephew, court was as to the legality of a retainer where- Oscar Clark Miller, or to his wife, Julia Miller, by the attorney for the administrator was to receive one-third of the amount received from

or a portion of such income to one, and the said estate as compensation for his services, remaining portion to the other, during the term

of the life of said Oscar Clark Miller." The together with costs and disbursements. James H. Hickey, of New York City, for appellant. wife, the trustees determined to pay the whole

petitioner having obtained a divorce from bis James E. Kelly, of New York City, for res of the income arising from the trust fund to spondent.

her. The petitioner thereupon brought this pro PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.ceeding under section 2689 of the Code of Civil

WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J. and HIS- Procedure. Samuel Dickstein, of New York
COCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, City, for appellant. Paul E. Whitten, of New
CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

York City, for respondent trustees. Mark M.
Schlesinger, of New York City, for respondent

Miller.
MEYER, Respondent, v. MORRIS & CO. et

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed with costs. al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HO. York. Dec. 12, 1916.) Appeal from an order GAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent. in the Third Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered May 2, 1916, which af. firmed an award of the State Industrial Commission, under the Workmen's Compensation

MILLINERY OUTLET CO., Inc., Appellant, Act, to the widow of Christopher 0. Meyer, v. WISE & CO., OUTFITTERS, Inc., Responwho was employed as a cutter and meat lugger dent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 17, by the defendant Morris & Co.,

cor- | 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a poration engaged in the business of meat pack- judgment of the Appellate Division of the Suing: At the time of the injury, deceased was preme Court in the First Judicial Department assisting in unloading beef from a car which (157 N. Y. Supp. 1136), entered March 28, 1916, was on a float adjoining a station; his foot affirming a judgment in favor of defendant. slipped and he fell over backwards, striking The motion was made upon the ground of failon his head on the edge of the float and fell ure to file the required undertaking. Hamilton into the water. By reason of this injury he C. Rickaby, of New York City, for the motion. died. John X. Carlisle, of Albany, and Alfred PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and apW. Andrews, of New York City, for appellants. peal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of mo Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken. I tjon. Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent.

I'ER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.
WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE,

In re MILLS' ESTATE. (Court of Appeals COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDO- of New York. Dec. 12, 1916.). Appeal from 20, and POUND, JJ., concur.

an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (172 App. Div. 530, 158 N. Y. Supp. 1100), en

tered June 6. 1916, which modified, and affirmMILES, Respondent, v. STALLO et al., Ap- ed as modified, an order of the New York

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »