CITY COURT OF NEW YORK — GENERAL TERM, JANUARY, 1896.

EMIL NEUFELD, Appellant, v. MOLLIE BLOCK, Respondent.

APPEAL by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial based on the judge's minutes and the exceptions taken during the trial.

William N. Loew, for appellant.

A. H. Berrick, for respondent.

BOTTY, J. This action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note and protest fees alleged to have been made by the defendant to the order of one M. Zidwertz, and indorsed and delivered by him to the plaintiff before maturity thereof, for a valuable consideration.

The answer of the defendant denies the making of the note, and, by way of a specific defense, she alleges that an agreement had been made and entered into between her and the plaintiff, wherein said Zidwertz was to return to her 360 assorted garments belonging to her which she had previously delivered to him to do work on.

That she signed a paper in blank which was intended as an agreement to the effect that if Zidwertz returned all the goods the plaintiff would be authorized to pay him for or on her account the sum of $200, and that she would reimburse the plaintiff therefor.

That Zidwertz failed and neglected to return all of said goods, but instead thereof he returned but 300 garments and retained the balance of such garments, of which plaintiff was duly informed, and that if the money was paid over to Zidwertz, the same was so paid without her knowledge or consent.

The issues thus raised were fairly tried and the disputed questions of fact were submitted to the jury under proper instructions from the court, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant, which was in accordance with the evidence. No exceptions were taken to the judge's charge.

The plaintiff then moved for a new trial on the judge's minutes and the exceptions taken during the trial only.

This motion was denied and exception taken, and an order entered to that effect which brings up for review only the exceptions of law.

Upon a careful examination of the record we find that the only exceptions taken by plaintiff were the exceptions to the rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, which rulings, in our opinion, were in accordance with the established rules of evidence.

The judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

MCCARTHY, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

MARY C. BARNARD, Respondent, v. THE UNITED LIfe InsurANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Harry Wilber, for appellant.

Lyman W. Redington, for respondent.

MCCARTHY, J. We must follow the law as laid down by the appellate court, and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed, with costs. Bernard v. United Life Ins. Assn., 12 Misc. Rep. 10.

BOTTY, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

THOMAS F. MCCALL, Respondent, v. EMMA L. JACQUELIN, Appellant.

APPEAL from order denying motion to vacate order for substituted service.

Redfield & Redfield, for appellant.

Michael H. Curran, for respondent.

CONLAN, J. The order for substituted service was properly made and the requirements of the Code observed.

to vacate was properly denied.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

FITZSIMONS and BOTTY, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Motion

FLORA POHALSKI, Appellant, v. JAMES ECTHEILER et al., Respondents.

APPEAL from judgment in favor of defendants.

S. L. Samuels, for appellant.

Otto Irving Wise, for respondents.

MCCARTHY, J. We have examined this case very carefully. There seems to have been some misunderstanding as to whether or not the plaintiff waives the introduction in evidence of the affidavit and warrant of attachment under which the levy was made and under which the defendants justified.

In order that justice may be done and that an application may be made to the next General Term to correct the same, we think it fair and proper to direct a reargument, when the whole case can be presented and argued.

So ordered.

BOTTY, J., concurs.

Reargument ordered.

ALEXANDER J. MAYER, Appellant, v. PHILIP C. BRUNS, Respondent.

APPEAL from an order denying motion to bring in the administrator as a party.

The following is the opinion at Special Term :

CONLAN, J. The complaint shows on its face that the action was not commenced within six years. As the answer

pleads the Statute of Limitations, I see no reason for bringing

in the administrator.

Motion denied.

G. Woodbury, for appellant.

D. McLean, for respondent.

FITZSIMONS, J. The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs, for the reason stated in the opinion of the Special Term justice; besides it is undisputed that the motion was not made by the plaintiff's attorney of record.

MCCARTHY and Borry, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.

THE TROY CARRIAGE WORKS, Appellant, v. HERBERT H. MUXLOW, Respondent.

APPEAL from order.

The following is the opinion at Special Term:

BOTTY, J. The proceedings were adjourned, not for the continuance of the examination of any surety which had been commenced, but to enable the defendant to procure the attendance of his sureties, or substitute new sureties, and have them present for examination.

Motion is, therefore, denied, but the new sureties must attend for justification on two days' notice, after service of notice of demand for such justification on plaintiff's attorney.

Thompson & Allen, for appellant.

W. H. Newman, for respondent.

Per Curiam. The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of the Special Term justice who made said order.

Present: FITZSIMONS and CONLAN, JJ.
Order affirmed, with costs.

EVERETT MACKINSTRY, Respondent, v. EMMA CONDIT SMITH, Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Alexander Thain, for appellant.

Leonidas Dennis, for respondent.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: FITZSIMONS, CONLAN and Borry, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HENRY SUDMEIER, Respondent, v. HENRY MAHLstadt, Appellant.

APPEAL from order.

John Fennel, for appellant.

Edward F. Hassey, for respondent.

MCCARTHY, J. Order affirmed, with costs.

FITZSIMONS, J., concurs.

Order affirmed, with costs.

CITY COURT OF NEW YORK-GENERAL TERM,

FEBRUARY, 1896.

THE CARTER RICE Co., Respondent, v. JOHN HOWARD,

Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment by jury for plaintiff, entered on verdict.

D. A. Spellissy, for appellant.

H. A. Sperry, for respondent.