Page images
PDF
EPUB

the order made, and we agree with such contention. The default sought to be opened was regularly taken at the Trial Term. On the motion the only paper used by the respondent was the affidavit of the attorney, presented in obtaining the order to show cause, and while the order recites that it is made on the pleadings, the record does not bring that before us on this appeal. No affidavit of merits was used on the motion. The order was erroneously granted and must be reversed. See Deane v. Loucks, 58 Hun, 555; 25 Misc. Rep. 635.

Mis made on

No affidavitonted and

Present: FITZSIMONS, Ch. J., CONLAN and HASCALL, JJ.
Order reversed, with costs.

Isaac D. ZEEMAN et al., Respondents, v. JOSEPH ROSENTHAL,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiffs. Louis Levy, for appellant. Max D. Steuer (Abraham S. Levy, of counsel), for respondents.

Per Curiam. The promise of defendant was not a promise to answer for the debt or default of another. It was an original promise. It was not necessary that it should have been in writing.

We think that no error was committed, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Conian and HASCALL, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Solomon Davis et al., Respondents, v. WILLIAM H. BINGHAM,

et al., Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the City Court of the city of New York.

Thompson & Maloney (William P. Maloney, of counsel), for appellants.

Hugo S. Mack (E. Walter Beebe, of counsel), for respondents.

Per Curiam. The oral pleadings in the Municipal Court upon the removal of the action to this court became the pleadings in this court. The order of this court simply required that the oral pleadings should be reduced to writing. This required the parties to do just what the order read. The issues made and pleadings could not be changed, except by this court; therefore, the defendants should have answered here, as they did in the Municipal Court, and should not have demurred. The complaint should have been also conformed to the oral pleading in the Municipal Court. If otherwise, objection should have been made by defendants by answer and not by demurrer.

Order sustained, with costs.
Present: FITZSIMONS, Ch. J., and HASCALL, J.
Order sustained, with costs.

NATHAN A. PELONSKY, Appellant, v. THE C. L. PIERSON MANU

FACTURING Co., Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the City Court of the city of New York, demanding a bill of particulars.

Myers, Goldsmith & Bronner, for appellant.

Eugene Newman, for respondent.

Per Curiam. The answer of the defendant clearly shows that it had knowledge of all facts necessary to enable it to proceed with the trial herein. It appears to us that the demand for a bill of particulars was made probably to delay the speedy trial of this action as before stated. No bill of particulars was needed to enable it to try the issues formed by the pleadings.

The order appealed from is reversed. Defendant's motion for bill of particulars denied, with ten dollars costs, and disbursements of this appeal.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Conian and Hascall, JJ.

Order reversed, motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

LIST OF DECISIONS – NO OPINIONS.

SUPREME COURT -- APPELLATE TERM, JUNE, 1900.

BEFORE TRUAX, P. J., SCOTT AND DUGRO, JJ.

tan

Ja ob Meyerowitz et al., Appellants, v. Royal D. Deyoe' al., Respondents -- Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan. Willian Klingenstein, for appellants ; Pan. nes & Eberhardt, for respondents. Judg

ment and order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhat

Louis Alexander, for appellant : David Steckler, re-pondent in person. Judgment reversed, with costs, and appeal from order

rent affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Edward F. Kienle, Respondent, v. Caspar

Strobel, Appel ant. - Appeal from a judg.
ment of the Municipal Court of the city of
New York, borough of Manhattan. Ashley,
Emley & Rubino, for appellant ; Phillips &
Avery, f r respondent. Judgment affirmed,
with costs. No opinion.
Hannah Febel, Respondent, v. Annie M.

Geraty Appellant. - Appeal from a judg:
ment of the Municipal Court of the city of
New York, borough of Manhattan. August
P. Wagener, for appellant; Alexander &
Ash, for respondent. Judgment affirmed,

with costs. No opinion
David Steckler, Respondent, v. Jonas V.

Spero, Appellant. – Appeal from a judg.

dismissed, with ten dollars costs. No opinion. Barbara Berpstein, Respondent, v. Charles

F. Pundt, Appellant.- appeal from a judg. ment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan. Hyman Levy, for appellant ; Levy & Bachrach, for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. The Acme Electric Lamp Company, Re spondent, v. The Kingston Carriage ('ompany, Appellant.— Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. Henry B'Twombly, for respondent. Kellogg, Rose & Smith (Abram J. Rose and Alfred v. Potter, of counsel), for appellant. Judg. ment affirmed, with costs. "No opinion.

SÚPREME COURT — APPELLATE TERM, JULY, 1900.

BEFORE Truax, P. J., Scott AND Dugro, JJ. Alice M Robinson, Respondent, v. The Met an order denying a motion for a new trial.

ropolitan Street Railway Company, Appel. House, Grossman & Vorhaus (Louis J Vorlant. - Appeal from a judgment of the Gen. haus and Joseph Fischer, of counsel), for reeral Te m of the City Court of the city of spondent:H A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr. New York, affirming a judgment in favor of coursel), for appellant. Judgment and of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and from order affirmed, with costs. No opinion

BEFORE TRUAX, P. J., AND DUGRO, J.

Albert Borrill, Appellant, v. Minnie Barton,

Respondent.-Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

William Henry Knox, for appellant : G. A. C. Barnett, for respondent. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. No opinion.

SUPREME COURT - APPELLATE TERM, NOVEMBER, 1900.

BEFORE Truax, P. J., SCOTT AND DUGRO, JJ. Harry W. Bell, Respondent, v. Gabrielle Val fendant. Hyland & Zabriskie (Nelson Zaente, Appellant.- Appeal from a judg. briskie, of counsel), for appellant ; Owen & ment and order of the General Term of the Sturges (Frank D Sturges, of counsel), for City Court of the city of New York, affirm respondent. Judgment aflirmed, with costs. in} a judgment in favor of plaintiff. I. No opinion. Fraumthal (Joseph Fischer, of counsel), for Solomon L. Pakas, Respondent, v. William E. appellant : L. B. Treadwell (R. W. Dar ing, Hollingshead et al. Appellants.-Appeal ot counsel), for respondent. Judgment and from a judgment of the General Term of

order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. the City Court of the city of New York, George N. Adams, Appellant, v. The Old Do affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

minion Steamship Company, Respondent. Spiegelberg & Wisa (Edinond E. Wise, of - Appeal from a judgment of the General counsel), for appellants; Max D. Steuer, Term of the City Court of the city of New for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with York, affirming a judgment in favor of de cosis. No opinion.

City COURT OF NEW YORK — GENERAL TERM, OCTOBER, 1900.

BEFORE FITZSIMONS, CH. J., CONLAN AND HASCALL, JJ. Sophie F. Brown, Respondent, v. The Metro- ! (Howard A. Sperry, of counsel), for appel

a paul Sonerte

politan Street Railway Company, Appel lant; Francis J. Nekarda (Paul Jones, of lant.-Appeal from a judgment of the City counsel), for respondent. Judgment alCourt of the city of New York in favor of firmed, with costs. No opinion. plaintiff. Henry A. Robinson (John T. Louis Mishner, Respondent, r. The Singer Little, of counsel), for appellant; M. P. Manufacturing Company, Appeliant.-APO'Connor (J. Brownson Ker, of counsel), for peal from a judgment of th- City Court of respondent. Judgment affirmed, with the city of New York in favor of plaintiff costs. No opinion

Benjamin L. Brandner (George Haho, of Bret Gregor, Respondent, v. August Nieder counsel), for appellant; Max D. Steuer man, as President, etc., Appellant.-Appeal (Abraham S. Levy, of counsel,) for refrom a judgment of the City Court of the spondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. city of New York, entered upon a verdict in No opinion. favor of plaintiff. Bernhard Rabbino

BEFORE FITZSIMONS, CH. J., AND CONLAN, J.

Elihu B. Frost, as Assigoee, etc., Appellant, John F. Galligan, Respondent, v. The Metro

v. The Weehawken Whart Company, Re politan Street Railway Company, Appelspondent.-Appeal from an order of the Jant.- Appeal from a judgment of the City City Court of the city of New York denying Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. the plaintiff. Henry A Robinson (John T. Norman G. Johnson, for appellant; Wilder Little, of counsel), for appellant: Philip J. & Anderson (Frederick E. Anderson, of Britt, for respondent. Judgment affirmed, counsel), for respondent. Order appealed with costs. No opinion. from affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

INDEX.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

Agreement to accept certain goods in payment for an indebtedness.-Where
a creditor presently and unconditionally agrees to accept certain goods out
of his debtor's stock as payment for an indebtedness for goods theretofore con-
signed, the presence, on the receipts exchanged by the parties upon the de-
livery of the goods, of the words “ On storage only ” will not prevent the
transaction from working an accord and satisfaction where these words are
found by the jury as intended only to reserve to the creditor, who was about
to go abroad, the right later to examine the goods in order to determine
whether they were the ones he had agreed to accept. Mautner v. Pike, 500.

ACCOUNTING.

Action for accounting of profits of joint adventure Barred by subsequent
agreement for compensation. - Where a person, who, upon request, obtained
control of stock of a typesetting company, accepts from his principals, as full
payment for his services, a definite number of shares in a new company to be
organized and subsequently organized by the principals in order to take over
the old company, he cannot subsequently claim compensation under a prior
agreement by which they were to pay him a certain percentage of the net
profits arising from the pooling and sale of the stock of the new company,
nor can he maintain an action for a compulsory accounting of such profits,
as he is not entitled to an accounting of such profits where his compensation
has been fixed and liquidated at a definite number of shares. Spier v. Hyde,
26.
See Executors and Administrators; Partnership; Assignment for

Benefit of Creditors.
ACTIONS.

1. Equity Inadequate remedy at la10.- Semble, that a corporation which
has paid money on an executory contract for the purchase of lots, but which
has no title or right of possession in them, may bring an action in equity to
enjoin an unincorporated association, with which it is claimed to have been
orally consolidated, from interfering with said lots — as it cannot be said
that the plaintiff has a remedy at law adequate to its rights in the matter.
Congregation Anshe Yosher v. First United R. S. Verein, 269.

2. Injunction to restrain publication of one's portrait as an advertisement
Right of privacy.The unauthorized making, printing and circulation,
throughout the United States, by a flour company and by a folding box com-
pany, of a large lithographic portrait of a young woman, not a public char-
acter, the portrait being surrounded by words and devices advertising mainly
the business of the flour company, is such an invasion of the young woman's
rights of privacy and of property in her own likeness as entitles her to main-
tain an action in equity for damages and also to restrain the defendants from
making, printing or circulating any picture, likeness, photograph or litho-
graph of her. A complaint alleging such facts is not demurrable upon the
ground that it fails to state a cause of action. Roberson v. Rochester Folding
Box Co., 344.

See Costs; Injunction; Parties; Patents.
ADEMPTION.

See Will.
ADVERSE FOSSESSION.

Ejectment.- A claim of title to real estate may be made as effectively by
acts alone as by assertions of such a claim. Where the grantor of a person in

« PreviousContinue »