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.

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., CONLAN 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 other wise, 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 MANUFACTURING 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., CONLAN and HASCALL, JJ.

Order reversed, motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

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

Jacob Meyerowitz et al., Appellants, v. Royal

D. Deyo et al., Respondents - Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan. William Klingenstein, for appellants; Pannes & Eberhardt, for respondents. Judg. ment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Edward F. Kienle, Respondent, v. Caspar Strobel, Appel ant.- Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan. Ashley, Emley & Rubino, for appellant; Phillips & Avery, for 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-

ment and order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan Louis Alexander, for appellant: David Steckler, respondent in person. Judgment reversed, with costs, and appeal from order dismissed, with ten dollars costs. No opinion. Barbara Bernstein, Respondent, v. Charles F. Pundt, Appellant.-Appeal from a judgment 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 Company, 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. Potter, of counsel), for appellant. Judg. ment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

[ocr errors]

SUPREME COURT APPELLATE TERM, JULY, 1900.

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

Alice M Robinson, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Gen. eral Te m of the City Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and from

an order denying a motion for a new trial. House, Grossman & Vorhaus (Louis J Vorhaus and Joseph Fischer, of counsel), for respondent: H A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Judgment and 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 Valente, Appellant.- Appeal from a judg ment and order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of New York. affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff. I. Fraumthal (Joseph Fischer, of counsel), for appellant: L. B. Treadwell (R. W. Dar ing, of counsel), for respondent. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. George N. Adams, Appellant, v. The Old Dominion Steamship Company, Respondent. -Appeal from a judgment of the Genera' Term of the City Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of de

fendant. Hyland & Zabriskie (Nelson Zabriskie, of counsel), for appellant: Owen & Sturges (Frank D Sturges, of counsel), for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Solomon L. Pakas, Respondent, v. William E. Hollingshead et al., Appellants.-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. Spiegelberg & Wise (Edmond E. Wise, of counsel), for appellants; Max D. Steuer, for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. 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 Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.-Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff. Henry A. Robinson (John T. Little, of counsel), for appellant; M. P. O'Connor (J. Brownson Ker, of counsel), for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion

Bret Gregor, Respondent, v. August Niederman, as President, etc., Appellant.-Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Bernhard Rabbino

(Howard A. Sperry, of counsel), for appellant; Francis J. Nekarda (Paul Jones, of counsel), for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Louis Mishner, Respondent, v. The Singer Manufacturing Company, Appel.ant.-Ap peal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff Benjamin L. Brandner (George Hahn, of counsel, for appellant; Max D. Steuer (Abraham S. Levy, of counsel,) for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

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

Elihu B. Frost, as Assignee, etc., Appellant, | v. The Weehawken Wharf Company, Respondent.-Appeal from an order of the City Court of the city of New York denying plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. Norman G. Johnson, for appellant; Wilder & Anderson (Frederick E. Anderson, of counsel), for respondent. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

John F. Galligan, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.- Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiff. Henry A Robinson (John T. Little, of counsel), for appellant; Philip J. Britt, for respondent. Judgment 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 consigned, the presence, on the receipts exchanged by the parties upon the delivery 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 law. 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 company, of a large lithographic portrait of a young woman, not a public character, 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 maintain an action in equity for damages and also to restrain the defendants from making, printing or circulating any picture, likeness, photograph or lithograph 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 »