of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (113 App. Div. 242, 99 N. Y. Supp. 22, 113 App. Div. 247, 99 N. Y. Supp. 25), entered May 20, 1906, modifying, and affirming as modified, judgments in favor of plaintiff entered upon reports of a referee. The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that there was evidence tending to sustain the findings of fact, and no questions of law were presented for review. Charles Edward Souther, for the motion. Louis Marshall, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

BONTA, Respondent, v. GRIDLEY, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 643, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1089), entered November 10, 1904, which affirmed interlocutory and final judgments in favor of plaintiff entered upon decisions of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. C. A. Hitchcock, for appellant. Charles P. Ryan, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent. VANN, J., not voting.

BORNKESSEL, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 25, 1906.)_Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 625, 88 N. Y. Supp.. 1093), entered October 18, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. John C. Robinson, for appellant. Joseph F. Daly, Bayard H. Ames, and Henry A. Robinson, for respondent. PER CURIAM. costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur.

BOWERS v. BARSE et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 636, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1100), entered July 26, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant (respondent) entered upon a dismissal of the complaint as to him by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover on a contract guarantying payment of dividends upon certain stock of which plaintiff was the owner of a number of shares. C. Walter Artz, Frederick W. Frost, and Frank Sullivan Smith, for appellant. J. Arthur Corbin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. HAIGHT, J., not voting.

BRADLEY et al. v. BRIDGE et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (101 App. Div. 611, 92 N. Y. Supp.

1117), entered upon an order made November 15, 1904, affirming an interlocutory and a final judgment entered upon the report of a reference in an action to settle the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants as to certain assets of the Bradley Salt Company. P. M. French, for appellant. Horace McGuire, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. CHASE, J., not sitting.

BRATT, Respondent, v. GIBBS et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 600, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1117), entered June 11, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for services. J. B. McCormick, for appellants. Fred A. Bratt, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., not sitting.

BRINCK, Respondent, v. NORTH GERMAN LLOYD S. S. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 619, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1122), entered May 4, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the loss of baggage through the alleged negligence of defendant. Joseph Larocque, Jr., for appellant. Lyman W. Redington, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce her recovery to the sum of $50, with interest from the date of the loss, with costs, in which event the judgment, as reduced, is affirmed, without costs of this appeal, on opinion in Tewes v. North German Lloyd Steamship Company, 186 N. Y. —, 78 N. E. 864.

GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and HAIGHT, J., dissent. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

BROWN et al., Appellants, v. McKIE, Tax Collector, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 185 N. Y. 303, 78 N. E. 64.

97

BROWN et al., Respondents, v. RETSOF MINING CO., Appellant (three cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Motion to dismiss appeals from judgments of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (109 App. Div. 150, 95 N. Y. Supp. 815; 112 App. Div. N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered in actions Nos. 1 and 2 on November 28, 1905, and in action No. 3 on March 9, 1906, which affirmed judgments in favor of plaintiffs entered upon decisions of the court at Trial Terms without juries in actions to recover on contracts. The motion was made upon the ground that the judgments are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, under subdivision 2 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure. John A. Garver,

for the motion. William H. Page, Jr., and Henry B. Twombly, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeals dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

BURKE, Respondent, v. BAKER et al., Appellants. Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (111 App. Div. 422, 97 N. Y. Supp. 768), entered March 6, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover from the city of New York salaries of members of the fire department thereof, alleged to have been assigned to plaintiff's testator. The motion was made upon the grounds that the appeal was taken in violation of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that no questions of law are raised thereby; the exceptions being frivolous. Thomas F. Magner, for the motion. Nelson Smith, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

BUTLER et al., Respondents, v. SUPREME COUNCIL A. L. H., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division_of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 164, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1012) entered May 10, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover upon a certificate of membership in a fraternal benefit society. Henry A. Powell, for appellant. Maurice E. Page, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN. C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, and WIL LARD BARTLETT, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., not sitting.

CAMDEN IRON WORKS v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Action by the Camden Iron Works against William H. Masterson and others. From a judg ment of the Appellate Division (93 N. Y. Supp. 754, 104 App. Div. 272), affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Judgment of Trial Term modified and affirmed. Henry Galbraith Ward, for appellant. L. Laflin Kellogg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of Trial Term modified by deducting therefrom the sum of $1,803.26. being the interest allowed upon the balance of respondents' counterclaim over and above the amount of appellant's claim from May 19, 1902. to June 16, 1904, the date of the decision herein, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. EDWARD T. BARTLETT. J.. votes for reversal in memorandum. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

EDWARD T. BARTLETT, J. (dissenting). I agree with the dissenting opinion of PATTERSON, J., in the Appellate Division, concurred in by Presiding Justice VAN BRUNT, to the effect that there was reversible error in the rulings of the trial judge when the inspectors for the city of New York were under examination by the counsel for the plaintiff. The most important point in the plaintiff's case was to establish, if possible, that these inspectors for the city were biased, and not acting in good faith.

CHAUVET, Respondent, v. IVES, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York, June 5. 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 303, 93 N. Y. Supp. 744), entered May 16, 1905, upon an order reversing a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury, and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to enforce an agreement entered into by the plaintiff and defendant as beneficiaries under the will of Francis W. Lasak, deceased. Algernon S. Norton and Henry W. Bookstaver, for appellant. Stillman F. Kneeland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment, affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, J., not voting.

CHOLET, Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (111 App. Div. 903, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1117), entered January 3, 1906, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial, and granted a new trial in an action to recover for the alleged negligent killing of plaintiff's intestate. Ray B. Smith, for appellant. Walter W. Magee, Corp. Counsel (William Nottingham, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts.

CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., dissents. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

In re CLINTON AVE. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (106 App. Div. 31, 94 N. Y. Supp. 146), entered June 9, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding. William C. Beecher and Richard B. Kelly, for appellant. J. Hampden Dougherty, Alvin R. Johnson. Jesse Johnson, and John P. Dunn, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J.. and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

CODY, Respondent, v. HADCOX, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (109 App. Div. 912, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1122), entered December 7. 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to a promissory note. Charles H. Searle, for appellant. P. C. J. De Angelis, for respondent.

recover on

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J. and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. HISCOCK, J., not sitting

COUSINO, Respondent, V. WATERTOWN PAPER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division_of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 625, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered May 12, 1905, affirming a judg ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned through defendant's negligence. Thomas Burns, for appellant. George B. MacComber, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

CULLIN, Appellant, v. ALVORD, Sheriff, Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (109 App. Div. 918, 96 N. Y. Supp. 494), entered January 13, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee in an action of replevin. The motion was made on the grounds that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it being from an unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division, and permission to appeal not having been obtained; that the exceptions were frivolous, and no question of law was presented for review. John L. Crandell, for the motion. J. Frank Chace, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

DAVIS, Appellant, V. BROADALBIN KNITTING CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (90 App. Div. 567, 86 N. Y. Supp. 127), entered February 17, 1904, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial, and granted a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Henry V. Borst and Florence J. Sullivan, for appellant. Lewis E. Carr and Edward W. Douglas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all the courts.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. CHASE, J., not sitting

DOHSE, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF BATAVIA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 512, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1093), entered January 23, 1905, affirming a judg ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Frank S. Wood, for appellant. George W. Watson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

20sts.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent.

DOON, Respondent, v. CASTLETON WATER SUPPLY CO., Appellant. (Court of Ap peals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 597, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1121), entered April 5, 1905, affirming a judg ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Henry W. Wiggins, for appellant. Herbert A. Heyn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

DUBUC, Respondent, v. LAZELL, DALLEY & CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 25, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 614, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1121), entered February 21, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract of employment. Austen G. Fox and George H. Fletcher, for appellant. Lyman E. Warren and Alfred E. Merrill, for respondent.

EBLING BREWING CO., Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY INTERBOROUGH RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 912, 99 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered April 6, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for the continuance of an injunction pendente lite. George W. Wickersham and Noel Gale, for appellant. Harold Nathan, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, without

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT. VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

EDWARDS, Respondent, v. WATERMAN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 25, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 624. 92 N. Y. Supp. 1121), entered March 8, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover a balance alleged to be due upon a building contract. Herbert Goldmark and George C. Coffin, for appellant. Harry W. Moore, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.
CULLEN. C. J., and O'BRIEN. HAIGHT,
VANN. WERNER. and HISCOCK, JJ., con-
WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not sitting.

cur.

EIGHTH WARD BANK OF BROOKLYN, Respondent, v. McLOUGHLIN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9. 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department

(113 App. Div. 750, 99 N. Y. Supp. 362), entered June 13, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment was not appealable, under subdivision 4 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Paul Grout, for the motion. Cleveland F. Bacon, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

FARGO, Respondent, v. SUPREME TENT KNIGHTS OF MACCABEES OF THE WORLD, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 491, 89 N. Y. Supp. 65), entered July 18, 1904, in favor of plaintiff upon the submission of a controversy, under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to the amount which plaintiff was entitled to recover as beneficiary under a certificate of insurance issued by defendant. Devere Hall, D. D. Aitken, and Franklin Kennedy, for appellant. J. L. Woodworth, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

FIRST NAT. BANK OF BINGHAMTON, Respondent, v. COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS' HOME ASS'N OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (108 App. Div. 78, 95 N. Y. Supp. 454), entered November 13, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a promissory note purporting to have been executed on behalf of defendant, by its treasurer, to the order of its president, by whom said note was indorsed, to the plaintiff as collateral security for the payment of said president's individual note. Robert E. Whalen, for appellant. Maurice E. Page, for respondent.

FITZPATRICK, Respondent, v. NAUGHTON CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 625, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered March 8, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have 'been occasioned by defendant's negligence. H. Snowden Marshall, for appellant. Albert A. Wray and Burton W. Gibson, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

FOGEL, Respondent, v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) No

opinion. Motion to amend remittitur so as to conform with memorandum of decision granted. See 185 N. Y. 562, 77 N. E. 1022.

FOX, Respondent, v. HOPKINS et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment entered March 30, 1905, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (84 App. Div. 632, 82 N. Y. Supp. 1101), affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action by a tenant to recover from his landlord damages caused by water leaking into the demised premises. George Wadsworth, for appellants. Simon Fleischmann and David Ruslander, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

FOX et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY INTERBOROUGH RY. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 832, 98 N. Y. Supp. 338), entered April 6, 1906, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for the continuance of an injunction pendente lite. William W. Niles, for appellants. George W. Wickersham and Noel Gale, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, without costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

GEIN, Respondent, v. LITTLE, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 614, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1125), entered February 17, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment was not appealable to the Court of Appeals, the action being upon an individual bond, the judgment of the Appellate Division being unanimous, and permission to appeal not having been granted. Lynn W. Thompson, for the motion. Alexander Thain, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

GERMAN AMERICAN INS. CO., Respondent, V. NEW YORK GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5. 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 310, 93 N. Y. Supp. 46), entered April 15, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover the amount of losses sustained by the occupants of a building by reason of a fire alleged to have been occasioned through defendant's negligence, which losses had been paid by the plaintiff and its assignors. Henry J. Hemmens and_Samuel A. Beardsley. for appellants. Richard J. Donovan and Herbert D. Cohen, for respondent.

GILSEY et al., Respondents, v. KEEN et al., Appellants (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 427, 93 N. Y. Supp. 783; 104 App. Div. 629, 93 N. Y. Supp. 787), entered May 17, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and an order denying a motion for a new trial in actions to recover amounts due for rent of leased premises. Grant C. Fox, for appellants. Sol. Kohn, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgments affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, J., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

GORHAM, Respondent, v. ROGERS et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 25, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 595, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1126), entered March 17, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Martin Conboy, for appellants. Howard Taylor, for respondent.

GROARKE, Appellant, v. LAEMMLE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (91 App. Div. 614, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1137), entered March 8, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the I court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. Charles Green Smith and Lawrence Atterbury, for appellant. De Lagnel Berier, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on the ground that defendant's negligence presented a question of fact for the jury.

CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ., ab

sent.

GROSSMAN, Respondent, V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (114 App. Div. -. 100 N. Y. Supp. 100), entered June 26, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for an injunction pendente lite herein. The following questions were certified: "(1) Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. (2) Whether or not, if the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to entertain this action, it ought to have entertained jurisdic

tion in view of the principle of comity." Joseph H. Choate and John A. Garver, for appellant. Clarence J. Stearn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered, to the effect that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this action, and that there is nothing in the principle of comity that prohibits the exercise of that jurisdiction, on opinion in Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 186 N. Y., 78 N. E. 871.

CULLEN. C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

GUEST, Respondent, v. GUEST, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 630, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered May 12, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover money alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendant. William P. Maloney, for appellant. Lyman E. Warren, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

HAACK, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN LABOR LYCEUM ASS'N, Appellant (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal by permission in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (112 App. Div. - 97 N. Y. Supp. 1136), entered March 22, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in actions-one to recover for loss of services, and the other to recover for personal injuries occasioned by defendant's alleged negligence. The motions were made upon the grounds that no questions were involved which could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. George H. Follwell, for the motions. Percival S. Menken, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion in each case granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

HEALY. Respondent, v. MALCOLM, ADpellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (110 App. Div. 888, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1128) entered December 28, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Edward W. S. Johnston and Edward P. Orrell, for appellant. L. Laflin Kellogg and Alfred C. Petté, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent.

HEIM. Respondent, v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 25, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (101 App. Div. 607, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1097), entered January 13, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a