MEMORANDUM DECISIONS fer tax upon the estate of Darius O. Mills, deceased. The appraiser refused to tax $2,000,000 which the comptroller contends was a part of the estate, because he found that gifts of said sum had been completed in the lifetime of the deceased, $1,000,000 to a son, Ogden Mills, and $1,000,000 to a daughter, Elizabeth M. Reid, and the appellant contends that this was error because the alleged gifts were never in fact delivered and there is no evidence either of a present intent to give or of a present intent to deliver the gift. The only question involved in this case is whether the title to this property comes to the son and daughter under the will or by gift inter vivos. Schuyler C. Carlton, Alexander Otis, and Lafayette B. Gleason, all of New York City, for appellant. Francis Lynde Stetson and Hall Park McCullough, both of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. MOFFETT, Appellant, v. PIEL, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the AppelNov. 21, late Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (166 App. Div. 898, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1097), entered February 2, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover damages on account of the alleged failure of the defendant's testator, said Hermann Petersen, as trustee, to execute and deliver a deed to the plaintiff for certain real property sold by said Hermann Petersen, as trustee, through an auctioneer at public auction, and purchased by said plaintiff according to the auctioneer's memorandum of sale. The action was one at law to recover damages for breach of contract and was so tried. The defendant's answer, in effect, was a general denial, with pleas of res adjudicata, waiver, and estoppel set forth as special defenses. E. V. B. Getty, of New York City, and Robert E. Moffett, of Brooklyn, for appellant. Aaron P. Jetmore and Cornelius S. Pinkney, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and NASH, Respondent, v. MOORE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment, entered January 27, 1915, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 67, 151 N. Y. Supp. 96), 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 plaintiff upon the merits in an action to set aside and cancel of record a forged assignment of two mortgages. The mortgage securities were in the hands of plaintiff's attorney who forged an assignment thereof and delivered them to defendant for value. The question was as to who was to suffer from the misconduct of the attorney. Charles Coleman Miller and Walter R. Davies, both of New PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. 114 N.E.-68 1073 (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3, 1916.) NASH, Respondent, v. ZIMMER, Appellant. Appeal from a judgment, entered January 27, 1915, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 67, 151 N. Y. Supp. 96), reversing entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term, and directing judgment in favor judgment in favor of defendant, of plaintiff upon the merits in an action to set aside and cancel of record a forged assignment of a mortgage. The bond and mortgage were in the hands of plaintiff's attorney who forged an assignment thereof and delivered them to defendant for value. The question was as to who was to suffer for the misconduct of the attorney. Robert J. Robeson, of New York City, for on, and William B. Shelton, all of New York appellant. Jeremiah F. Connor, Edward P. LyCity, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. BREUCHAUD, Appellant. (Court of Appeals NATIONAL SURETY CO., Respondent, v. of New York. Oct. 10, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 395, 150 N. Y. Supp. 826), entered January 4, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover a premium on a surety bond. The motion was made upon the grounds that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous, that the exceptions were frivolous, and that the appeal was taken for purpose of delay only. William R. Page, of New York City, for the motion. A. T. Clearwater, of Kingston, opposed. PER CURIAM. costs. Motion denied, with $10 York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of In re NAUL. (Court of Appeals of New the Second Judicial Department (172 App. Div. the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 28, 1916, which affirmed a decree of the Suffolk 965, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1137), entered February County Surrogate's Court adjudging the resole issue presented by this appeal is the sufspondents herein to be the sole heirs at law and ficiency of the proof of relationship between the next of kin of Robert J. Power, deceased. The decedent and the claimants, respondents, and whether the finding of fact declaring that relationship is supported by the evidence. Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (Robert P. Beyer and Leonard J. Obermeier, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. John J. Dwyer, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Appeals of New York. Oct. 17, 1916.) Appeal qualified under the laws of Pennsylvania, Ohio | and Illinois. Elijah N. Zoline and William A. Ulman, both of New York City, for appellant. Albert H. Harris, Jacob Aronson, Frederick L. Wheeler, and Alexander S. Lyman, all of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent, v. SWEETING et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (166 App. Div. 909, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1099), entered December 4, 1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate and set aside a judgment of condemnation, to dismiss the petition of the plaintiff herein, and to vacate and set aside all proceedings taken by plaintiff since the granting of said judgment of condemnation, on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain proceedings for the acquisition of the real estate owned by the defendants and described in the petition herein, against the wishes of the said defendants, under any law of the state of New York, and that the court was, and is, without jurisdiction to make any order appointing commissioners in this proceeding. The proceeding was brought to condemn property of defendants for railroad purposes. Joseph McLean, Jr., of Rochester, for appellants. Daniel M. Beach and Leonard B. Bacon, both of Rochester, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JJ., concur. In re NEW YORK MUNICIPAL RY. CORPORATION et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (158 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered May 12, 1916, which affirmed orders of Special Term, one denying a motion to vacate a prior order authorizing substituted service on certain defendants, and another confirming the report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings. See, also, 159 N. Y. Supp. 1130. Herbert G. McLear, of New York City, for appellants. Trabue Carswell, Charles I. Woody, and George D. Yeomans, all of Brooklyn, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JJ., concur. NOLAN v. CRANFORD CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial De partment (171 App. Div. 959, 155 N. Y. Supp. 1128), entered March 7, 1916, which affirmed an award of the State Workmen's Compensation Commission for the death of one William Nolan. The defendant Cranford Company, which was engaged in the general trucking business, hired horses, wagons and drivers from one Kane, who paid the drivers their wages. No lan, one of the drivers so furnished, while driving a wagon under the direction and control of the Cranford Company, was accidentally killed. The question was as to whether the Cranford time of the accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law. George A. Blauvelt, Joseph A. Warren, and Francis J. MacIntyre, all of New York City, for appellants. Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JJ., concur. NORTON, Respondent, v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (163 App. Div. 927, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered May 11, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action on a policy of fire insurance. The motion was made upon the grounds that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous, that the exceptions were frivolous, that no questions of law were involved, and that the appeal was taken solely for delay. Thomas F. Powers, of Troy, for the motion. Eugene D. Flanigan, of Albany, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. Oct. 10, NYE, Respondent, v. GOVEN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. 1131), entered September 12, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion to compel defendant to accept service of a bill of exceptions. The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. O. R. Dunn, of Champlain, for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. In re O'BRIEN. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) In the matter of the application of Matthew J. O'Brien for revocation of letters of administration with will annexed of the estate of Peter Caffrey, issued to Bernard A. Caffrey. Peter Caffrey, by his will, left all of his property to one Annie O'Neill and appointed her sole executrix. She subsequently died leaving, by her will, all of her to her death and prior to probate of her will the property to the petitioner herein. Subsequent respondent herein was on his petition granted letters of administration with the will annexed of the estate of Peter Caffrey. Revocation of such letters was asked upon the ground that there was no cause for administration of goods unadministered. All the debts were paid by Annie O'Neill, the executrix, in her lifetime, and there are no assets in the estate of Peter Caffrey left unadministered; that the appellant has and had the prior right to letters of administration on the estate of Peter Caffrey; the application of the respondent for letters of administration having been made ex parte and without notice to the appellant O'Brien, the one having the prior right, should be vacated in O'Brien's favor on his application, and that the personal interest of the respondent is hostile to the will, and the issuing of letters of administration to him was contrary to the MEMORANDUM DECISIONS Appellate Division (167 App. Div. 899, 151 N. ent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. 1075 in order to induce him to make that contract with the company offered personally to give shares of the common stock of the company and Ott out of Wesel's own holdings twenty-five further offered to purchase back from Ott the said stock of the company and pay him $5,000 satisfied with his employment or his investtherefor if at the end of the year Ott was not terms, and accordingly on March 8th, an agreement. Plaintiff apparently was willing to go into the employ of the company upon these ment to that effect was signed by Ott and Wesel. Thereafter Ott elected to avail himself over his stock, and on January 14, 1913, beof the right to have Wesel or his estate take sonally handed to Ferdinand Wesel, Jr., a ing 60 days prior to March 15, 1913, he pernotice to that effect, and thereafter brought this action to compel performance. Wales F. Severance and Gustav Lange, Jr., both of New York City, for appellant. Louis H. Hall, of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. O'CONNOR, Respondent, v. WEBBER et al., Appellants. York. Dec. 28, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment (Court of Appeals of New of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (170 App. Div. 916, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1136), entered July 30, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for loss sustained by reason of personal injuries received through the alleged negligence of the defendant, by plaintiff's infant his employer, in requiring said infant to oper- LIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, ate an unguarded meat-chopping machine. The and' POUND, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and COL answer alleged contributory negligence. Frank Verner Johnson and Amos H. Stephens, both of New York City, for appellants. Sydney A. Syme, of Mt. Vernon, for respondent. son costs. PER CURIAM. DOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. ONEONTA LIGHT & POWER CO., Respondent, v. SCHWARZENBACH et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (164 App. Div. 548, 150 N. Y. Supp. 76), entered December 4. 1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings. to whether the plaintiff had power to acquire The question was as the lands in question by condemnation. Seybolt, of Oneonta, for appellants. Thompson, of Oneonta, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and HOGAN, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARLETT, C. J., and CARDOZO, J., dissent. Alva J. F. OTT, Respondent, v. WESEL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the AppelDec. 28, late Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (168 App. Div. 913, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1131), entered April 26, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action on contract. absent. Judgment affirmed, with HISCOCK, J., 28, 1916.) Motion to dismiss appeals from an plaintiff denied, with $10 costs. CENT. & H. R. R. Co., Appellant. (Court of PAKULSKI, Respondent, v. NEW YORK Appeals of New York. of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division Nov. 21, 1916.) ApSupp. 1131), entered April 30, 1915, affirming Department (168 App. Div. 936. 153 N. Y. a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant. curred at Elmwood avenue in the city of Buffalo, The accident ocMarch 8, 1911, Ferdinand Wesel, the defend- board a moving passenger train known as the On N. Y., while the plaintiff was attempting to ant's testator, was the president of F. Wesel "Gratwick Special," and which was being operManufacturing Company, a New York corpora- ated on what is known as the New York Central tion, and was likewise a director and the own-belt line. The acts of negligence of which the er of a majority of the stock of that corpora- plaintiff complains and as alleged in the comtion. It appears that Wesel, as president of plaint are: "That on the said 21st day of June, F. Wesel Manufacturing Company, desired to 1913, while plaintiff was waiting to board said employ plaintiff in the financial department of train as a passenger of the defendant, the train that company and to procure him to invest $5,- came into said station slowing down, and when 000 in the business of the company by purchas- it had almost come to a stop and was moving ing from the company $5,000 of its preferred slowly, plaintiff, with other passengers, safely stock at par and that Wesel individually and boarded the same; while plaintiff was yet upon the steps of the car he had so boarded, the train | Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in was so negligently managed that it gave a vio- the First Judicial Department (170 App. Div. lent jerk and jar and plaintiff's footing on said steps was taken from him and the weight of his body was entirely put upon his hands on the railings on said car steps, and he was dragged and thrown in such a way that the wheels of said train passed over his left leg." H. W. Huntington, of Buffalo, for appellant. Roscoe R. Mitchell and Michael M. Cohn, both of Buffalo, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. PALM, FECHTELER & CO., Respondent, v. FECHTELER et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 989, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1100), entered January 14, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff. The motion was made upon the ground that the defendant Fechteler had died pending the appeal, that no person had been substituted in his place or stead, that no executor or administrator of his estate had been appointed, that upon the return of an order to show cause duly served upon all persons interested in the decedent's estate no one had appeared in opposition to the motion, and that the other appellant had consented to dismissal of the appeal. Edward B. Boise, of New York City, for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs. 802, 156 N. Y. Supp. 679), entered December 30, 1915, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York sustaining a demurrer to an information charging defendant with unlawfully engaging in business as an undertaker without having first obtained a license as required by section 295 of the Public Health Law (Consol. Laws, c 45) as amended by chapter 71 of the Laws of 1913. The Appellate Division held the statute unconstitutional. Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (Edward G. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the People. Arthur F. Driscoll, of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, on authority of People v. Ringe, 197 N. Y. 143, 90 N. E. 451. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and HOGAN, JJ., concur. POUND, J., not voting. pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. CHASE, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and PAPA, Respondent, v. RINI, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KUMROW, AppelDepartment (171 App. Div. 796, 157 N. Y. lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. Supp. 1079), entered March 17, 1916, which 31, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Suaffirmed an order of Special Term summarily directing the defendant, an attorney at law, to pay over to the petitioner a sum of money re ceived by said attorney in his professional capacity from the petitioner and wrongfully retained. Leonard F. Fish and Michael O. Rini, both of New York City, for appellant. Arthur C. Blatz, of Mt. Vernon, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., absent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CASSIDY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. 1133). entered June 26, 1916, which affirmed a judgment of the Schuyler County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of rape in the second degree. Oscar J. Brown, of Syracuse, for appellant. Leon S. Church, of Interlaken, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and POUND, JJ., concur. HOGAN, J., not sitting. PEOPLE, Appellant, v. HARRISON, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. preme Court, rendered February 24, 1916, at a Trial Term for the county of Erie, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Clark H. Timerman and Charles W. Pooley, both of Buffalo, for appellant. Guy B. Moore, Dist. Atty., of Buffalo (Walter F. Hofheins, of Buffalo, of counsel), for the People. J. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not voting. PEOPLE, Respondent, V. MILLSTEIN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 3, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered April 18, 1916, at a Trial Term for the county of Oneida, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. J. K. O'Connor, of Utica, for appellant. Bradley Fuller, of Utica, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MOY HE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE, Appellant, v. RIGGS, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 913, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered May 19, 1915, which reversed a judgment of the Wayne County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of arson in the second degree and granted a new trial. A. S. Armstrong, Dist. Atty., of Clyde (E. W. Hamm, of Lyons, of counsel), for the People. Charles T. Ennis, of Lyons, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Appellant, v. STEHR, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (156 N. Y. Supp. 1139), entered December 10, 1915, which reversed a judgment of the Kings County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of arson in the first degree and granted a new trial. Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, Hersey Egginton, and Harry G. Anderson, all of Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People. Luke O'Reilly, of Brooklyn, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. VAN BRINK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. 1134), entered June 16, 1916, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York convicting the defendant of a misdemeanor in admitting a child under the age of 16 years to a moving picture performance in violation of section 484 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40). Jonah J. Goldstein, of New York City, for appellant. Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert Edward S. Johnstone, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and POUND, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. BERNSTEIN, Respondent, LA FFTRA, City Court Justice, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 31, 1077 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (172 App. Div. 954, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1140), entered February 26, 1916, which sustained a writ of certiorari and annulled a determination of the defendant adjudging the relator guilty of criminal contempt of court. City (Charles J. Nehrbas and Terence Farley, Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of New York both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. I. Maurice Wormser, of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, and HOGAN, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CUDDEBACK and CARDOZO, JJ., dissent. V. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY et al. PEOPLE ex rel. BREWSTER et al. York. Oct. 24, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (158 N. Y. (Court of Appeals of New Supp. 1126), entered April 25, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory .writ of mandamus to compel the board of supervisors to meet and pass a bond issue of the county of Westchester in the aggregate principal sum of $100,000 for ness theretofore issued under authority of the the purpose of paying certificates of indebtedsaid board of supervisors in like amount, which certificates were due on the 1st day of November, 1915. By chapter 111 of the Laws of 1915 erection and furnishing of certain county buildthere was created for the county of Westchesings specified and designated in the act, and ter a building commission with authority for the the board of supervisors was authorized to borrow money and issue temporary certificates of indebtedness and bonds to pay the same. board of supervisors having exercised its discretion in authorizing the issuance of certificates in the sum of $100,000, and having fixed November 1, 1915, as the due date for said certificates, endeavored at subsequent sessions to pass bond issues in various amounts, all of which were defeated, due to the fact that the bond issue acts failed to receive a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to the board in eral Municipal Law. accordance with the requirements of the GenNew York City, for appellants. Winfield L. Morse, of Davidson, of Port Chester, for respondents. William A. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, The ADAMSON, Fire Com'r of City of New York, |