ppeal. Reversed. Jacob Marks, for appelants. Howe & Hummel, for respondent. McCARTHY, J. We have examined very arefully the papers presented by both sides on this appeal, as well as the cases referred to, ind are of the opinion that this cause does not nvolve the examination of a long account, as rovided for in section 1013, Code Civ. Proc., and ought not to be referred. Order appealed rom reversed, with $10 costs and disburse nents, and motion denied, with $10 costs. O'DWYER and SCHUCHMAN, JJ., concur. SMITH v. SIMONSON. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Janury 25, 1901.) Action by James G. Smith against Stephen N. Simonson. No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. SOCIALISTIC CO-OP. PUB. ASS'N v. KUHN et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. December 21, 1900.) Action by the Socialistic Co-operative Publishing Association against Henry Kuhn and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. In re SPEAR. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. December 31, 1900.) In the matter of Howard Spear. No opinion. Charges dismissed. STACEY, Appellant, v. RUDES et al., Re(Supreme Court Appellate Divi spondents. sion, Third Department. January 9, 1901.) Action by Hattie Stacey against James M. Rudes and another. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. STEVENS, Appellant, v. MARCELLUS ELECTRIC RY. CO. et al., Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 29, 1901.) Action by Lyman A. Stevens against the Marcellus Electric Railway Company, Charles Garvey, and Minnie Garvey. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except McLENNAN, J., not voting. STEWART v. VADEBONCOEUR. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 9, 1901.) Action by Alexander Stewart, administrator, etc., against Ladislas Vadeboncoeur. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. STILLMAN, Appellant, v. BRANT, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 25, 1901.) Action by Howard Y. Stillman against Henry L. Brant. H. A. Forster, for appellant. F. H. Wadsworth, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In re SULLIVAN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 29, 1901.) In the matter of the proceedings to disbar Peter M. Sullivan, an attorney. No opinion. Order of reference to Joseph W. Taylor, Esq., an attorney and counselor of the city of Rochester, N. Y., filed with the clerk. SUPIK, Respondent, v. STEINHARDT_et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 8, 1901.) Action by Agnes Supik against Lewis Steinhardt and others. L. S. Carrere, for appellants. P. Jones, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. TAIT v. BUFFALO RY. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 15, 1901.) Action by Delia M. Tait, as administratrix, etc., against the Buffalo Railway Company. PER CURIAM. Order (67 N. Y. Supp. 403) amended, so as to read: "It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment and order so appealed from be, and the same hereby are, reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.' al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate TALLMAN, Appellant, v. TALLMAN et Division, Second Department. 1901.) Action by Gertrude L. Tallman, indiJanuary 11, vidually and as executrix, etc., against Margarita H. Tallman, individually and as executrix, etc., and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, on argument, without costs, but with disbursements of the parties on this appeal, to be taxed in their respective bills of costs. TEABOUT, Respondent, v. CONNOLLY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. Action by Clarence C. Teabout against Daniel January 9, 1901.) Connolly. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. THIRD NAT. BANK OF SYRACUSE, Respondent, v. KEEFFE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 15, 1901.) Action by the Third National Bank of Syracuse against Arthur J. Keeffe and others. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to court of appeals granted, without costs. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. THOMPSON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 25, 1901.) Action by Emma Thompson against Joseph R. Thompson. W. A. Mitchell, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In re TOUSEY. (Supreme Court, Appellate December 31, Division, First Department. 1900.) In the matter of Mary B. Tousey, deceased. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. TRASK et al., Respondents, v. STURGES, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. December 21, 1900.) Action by Gustavus D. S. Trask and others against Sadie T. Sturges. W. R. Wilder, for appellant. H. L. Sprague, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment (63 N. Y. Supp. 1084) affirmed, with costs. and 102 New York State Reporter TROMBLAY, Respondent, v. HARMONY MILLS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 9, 1901.) Action by Peter Tromblay against the Harmony Mills. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. TROMBLAY v. HARMONY MILLS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 24, 1901.) Action by Peter Tromblay against the Harmony Mills. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. TYRREL v. SEAMEN'S BANK FOR SAVINGS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 15, 1901.) Action by Daniel Tyrrel against the Seamen's Bank for Savings. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See G8 N. Y. Supp. 275. WARD, Appellant, v. KOUNTZE et al. spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate D sion, First Department. February 8, 190 Action by Beverly Ward against L Kountze and another. E. L. Mooney, for ap pellant. G. W. Van Slyck, for responders No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 and disbursements. WARNER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EI UCATION OF UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, Respondent. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department. Jan ary 9, 1901.) Action by Sarah L. Warne against the board of education of Union Fre No opinion. Juda School District No. 1, etc. ment unanimously affirmed, with costs. WATKINS et al., Appellants, v. DEWE! Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate D sion, Fourth Department. January 8, 1901 Action by George Watkins and others aga Eugene Dewey. No opinion. Judgment In re VANDERBILT. (Supreme Court, Ap-firmed, with costs. pellate Division, First Department. February 25, 1901.) In the matter of the transfer tax WATSON et al. v. NOBLETT. (Suprem upon the estate of William H. Vanderbilt, deceased. Anderson & Anderson, for appellant. J. Holmes, Jr., for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements, upon the opinion in the case of In re Vanderbilt's Estate, 50 App. Div. 246, 63 N. Y. Supp. 1079. WANDELL, Appellant, v. WANDELL, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. December 31, 1900.) Action by Francis L. Wandell against Charlotte M. Wandell. W. F. Severance, for appellant. I. S. Ross, for respondent. No opinion. Amount of counsel fee reduced to $250, and, as so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In re WARD et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 11, 1901.) In the matter of the application of Jessie L. Ward and Anna L. Judson for a writ of certiorari. PER CURIAM. Application denied, without costs, on opinion of JENKS. J., in Re C. Tilyou (Sup.) 67 N. Y. Supp. 1097. All concur, except GOODRICH, P. J., dissenting, and SEWELL, J., taking no part. Court, Appellate Division, First Departmen February 8, 1901.) Action by Walter S. Wao son and another against Edward A. Noblett No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. WEBB v. NORRIS et al. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department. Febre ary 15, 1901.) Action by Edward D. Wel ion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. No opin against John G. Norris and others. WEBER, Respondent, v. TOWN OF PELHAM, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 31. 1901.) Action by Charles Weber against the town of Pelham. No opinion. Order affirme with $10 costs and disbursements, on authors ty of Hurley v. Brown, 55 App. Div. 8, 67 X. Y. Supp. 279. WEEKES, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department February 25, 1901.) Action by Louisa Weeks against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Com pany. C. F. Brown, for appellant. J. J. Craw ford, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. WESTERVELT v. GARRETT. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS. (Supreme by William A. Wilson against Fitzhugh Smith. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 24, 1901.) In the matter of the charges of Charles E. Westervelt against William T. Garrett as overseer of the poor of the town of Marlborough, Ulster county, N. Y. No opinHon. Motion granted, and William T. Garrett removed from the office of overseer of the poor of the town of Marlborough, Ulster county, N. Y. WETMORE, Respondent, v. WETMORE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Action by Annette B. Wetmore against William B. Wetmore. T. P. Wickes, for appellant. F. B. Candler, for respondent. No opinOrder affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ion. lant. WOODRUFF et al., Respondents, v. HUN(Supreme Court, Appellate TER, Appellant. Division, First Department. January 25, 1901.) S. L. Samuels, for Action by John R. P. Woodruff and another Νο appellant. against Edward Hunter. R. Foster, for respondents. pinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. V. LONWORTHINGTON, Respondent, December 31, 1900.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. DON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Appellant. February 25, 1901.) Action by Amasa Worthington against the London Guarantee & Accident Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Reversed. Ernest F. Eidlitz, for appellant. Bostwick, Morrell & Bates, for respondent. WIERICHS, Respondent, v. INNIS, Appel(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, AcDecember 21, 1900.) First Department. tion by Harriet Wierichs against James Innis. J. A. Douglas, for appellant. J. G. Klee, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. V. SARANAC WILLIAMS, Respondent, LAKE LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 9, 1901.) Action by Ada Williams, as administratrix, against the Saranac Lake Light, Heat & Power Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. PER CURIAM. We find no evidence in this case that Hall & Henshaw had authority to represent the defendant in the employment of establish a ratification. The cases cited by subagents; nor is there evidence sufficient to respondent were actions brought by persons insured under policies of insurance, and have no application. If the plaintiff has a claim for commissions or damages, his remedy is against The judgment, being Hall & Henshaw, who employed him, and not against the defendant. without evidence to support it, must be reversed. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. ZANGWILL, Appellant, v. SUN PRINTSAV. BANK, Re- ING & PUBLISHING ASS'N, Respondent. WILLIAMSBURGH spondent, v. METHODIST PROTESTANT partment. February 8, 1901.) Action by IsCHURCH OF VILLAGE OF WILLIAMS (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeH. M. Close, for appelBURGH et al., Respondents (POWELL, Ap-rael Zangwill against the Sun Printing & Pubpellant). (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, lishing Association. Ac-lant. F. Bartlett, for respondent. No opinion. Second Department. January 11, 1901.) tion by the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Judgment affirmed, with costs. against the Methodist Protestant Church of the Village of Williamsburgh and others. opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except SEWELL, J., taking no part. No WILSON, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 25, 1901.) Action ZINGREBE, Respondent, v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 25, 1901.) Action by Gustav Zingrebe against the Union Railway Company of New York City. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. See 67 N. Y. Supp. 554. INDEX. ABATEMENT. Of nuisance, see "Nuisance," § 1. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. Continuance by receiver of action commenced by Pleas in abatement, see "Pleading," § 2. 1. Another action pending. 2. Defects and objections as to parties Where judgment is not entered in an action 3. Transfer or devolution of title, A motion by the assignee of a judgment to Motion for substitution of administratrix of ABUTTING OWNERS. Compensation for taking of or injury to lands ACCEPTANCE. f goods sold in general, see "Sales." § 1. f offer or proposal, see "Contracts." § 1. ACCIDENT. Accident insurance, see "Insurance," § 6. ACCOMMODATION PAPER. See "Bills and Notes." ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See "Release." The rule of accord and satisfaction does not The execution of a release to all the defend- ACCOUNT. Accounting by assignee for benefit of creditors, by executor or administrator, see "Execu- Jurisdiction of city court, see "Courts," § 3. ACTION. Abatement, see "Abatement and Revival." co-tenants, see "Partition," § 1. tions." Malicious actions, see "Malicious Prosecution." (1153) |