MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

ango County Surrogate's Court construing the ninth and tenth paragraphs of the will of Fannie M. Eldredge, deceased. David F. Lee, of Norwich, for appellant. Eugene Clinton, of Norwich, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, SEABURY. and POUND, JJ., concur. CHASE and COLLIN, JJ., dissent.

ANGLO-SOUTH AMERICAN BANK, Lim- In re BAKER. (Court of Appeals of New ited, Respondent, v. NATIONAL CITY BANK York. March 14, 1916.) Appeal from an order OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Ap- of the Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court peals of New York. April 11, 1916.) Appeal in the Third Judicial Department (168 App. from a judgment of the Appellate Division of Div. 712, 154 N. Y. Supp. 695), entered July the Supreme Court in the first Judicial Depart-28, 1915, which reversed a decree of the Chenment (161 App. Div. 268, 146 N. Y. Supp. 457), entered March 11, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. This is an action at law wherein plaintiff, as depositor, has sued defendant, as banker, for breach of the ordinary contract subsisting between a customer and a bank of deposit. Defendant is alleged to have breached this contract in the following respects: (1) In paying plaintiff's draft for $15,000 upon a fraudulent indorsement; (2) in charging plaintiff's account with the amount of this draft "so paid on said forged indorsement," and (3) in refusing to recredit said sum to plaintiff on In re BALDWIN AND OTHER STREETS demand and upon redelivery of said check to IN CITY OF ROCHESTER. (Court of Apdefendant. It is alleged by plaintiff and admit-peals of New York. May 2, 1916.) Appeal ted by defendant that plaintiff "drew and is from an order of the Appellate Division of the sued" its check on defendant for $15,000 paya- Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Departble to the order of National Protective Associa- ment (169 App. Div. 128, 154 N. Y. Supp. 728), tion. It is set up as an affirmative defense that entered July 9, 1915, which reversed an order after the issuance of said check and before any of Special Term vacating and setting aside cerindorsement was placed thereon said check was tain assessments for street improvements. The presented to defendant for certification by the controversy arose over the improvement of five person to whom plaintiff delivered it and was streets, it being the contention of certain of the thereupon certified by defendant and the amount thereof debited to plaintiff's account with de- the "territory of assessment" should include owners of property fronting on the streets that fendant. George W. Morgan and Edward A. frontage on intersecting streets. Ednor A. Craighill, Jr., both of New York City, for ap- Marsh and John H. Hopkins, both of Rochester, pellant. Edwin T. Rice, of New York City, for for appellants. B. B. Cunningham, Corp. Counrespondent. sel, of Rochester (Charles L. Pierce, of Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.

ASHLEY, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO., ReBALLANTINE, Respondent, V. BECKspondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. WITH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New April 11, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment, en- York. Feb. 29, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an tered March 25, 1914, upon an order of the appeal from a judgment of the Appellate DiviAppellate Division of the Supreme Court in the sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Second Judicial Department (161 App. Div. Department (155 N. Y. Supp. 1093), entered 948, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1083), reversing a judg- December 8, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a ver of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action dict and directing a dismissal of the complaint to recover for damages to personal property alin an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused through the negligence leged to have been sustained by plaintiff through of the defendant. The motion was made upon the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff, while in the grounds that the Appellate Division had the employ of defendant as brakenian, was unanimously decided that the verdict was suppitched or thrown from a tank car at the rear ported by the evidence, and that no questions of end of the front section of a freight train, which law were raised that could be reviewed by the had just been broken for the purpose of cutting Court of Appeals. William R. Hill, of New out and switching from the main track onto a siding cars which were in the middle of the of New York City, opposed. York City, for the motion. Duncan Edwards, train. The case was submitted to the jury on the theories that they might find that either the defendant's engineer or the defendant's conductor was guilty of negligence in the handling of the train and so caused plaintiff's injuries. John C. Robinson, Leonard F. Fish, and Thom-R. TERMINAL CO., Appellant. (Court of ApBARNES et al.. Respondents, v. MIDLAND as J. O'Neill, all of New York City, for appel- peals of New York. Feb. 29, 1916.) lant. William C. Cannon, of New York City, to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the for respondent. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (147 App. Div. 89, 131 N. Y. Supp. 750), entered November 28, 1911, affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The motion

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. SEÁBURY, J., dissents.

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

Motion

was made upon the grounds that the notice of
appeal was not served within the time required
by law, and that the Court of Appeals had, in
any event, no jurisdiction to review the judg-
ment appealed from. John Brooks Leavitt, of
New York City, for the motion. Alfred G.
Reeves, of New York City, opposed.
PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10
costs. See, also, 112 N. E. 926.

sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 936, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1110), entered July 13, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The motion was made upon the grounds that the action was one for services: that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous and that permission to appeal had not been obtained. John G. Jackson, of New York City, for the motion. William M. Patterson, of New York City, opposed.

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

BLACKLOCK, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 11, 1916.) Apof the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (162 App. Div. 927, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1099), entered April 3, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover from a common carrier for breach of its contract, as expressed by its bills of lading, in that it delivered the goods mentioned therein without the surrender of such bills duly indorsed by the plaintiff as required by the terms thereof. Lester F. Gilbert, of Buffalo, for appellant. G. D. Judson, of Lockport, for respondent.

BARRETT v. JOHN V. SCHAEFER, JR. & CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 11, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (162 App. Div. 52, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1056), entered April 16, 1914, affirming a judgment of Special Term adjudging invalid the lien or assignment of the defendant Hudson Trust Company and adjudg-peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division ing valid the liens of the plaintiff and other lienors in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The defendant John V. Schaefer, Jr. & Co. is the contractor to whom the various lienors furnished either labor or materials or both. The defendant Hebrew Sheltering Guardian Society is the owner of the property situated in Westchester county against which the various liens are asserted. The contractor failed to complete its contract and it was completed by the owner at the contractor's expense, and upon the trial it was stipulated that after deducting the cost of the completion there remained in the hands of the owner to the credit of the contractor the sum of $27,696.01. The defendant Hudson Trust Company claims a right to share in this fund by virtue of an instrument which purports on its face to be an assignment of moneys due under the contract, which was given to secure the payment of a promissory note given by the defendant John V. Schaefer, Jr. & Co. to said trust company. Victor E. Whitlock, of New York City, for Hudson Trust Co. Ralph H. Blum, of New York City, for Craig & Brown. Wilson Randolph Yard, of Pleasantville, for Marshall & Hufcut and others. Henry R. Barrett and Floyd M. Grant, both of White Plains, for Edward P. Barrett. Norbert Heinsheimer, of New York City, for Fraitel Marble Co. Charles A. Hitchcock, of Syracuse, for Lieberman & Sanford Co. Frank M. Avery and Henry W. Eaton, both of New York City, for Sargent & Co.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.

B. A. & G. N. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & QUEENS E. LIGHT & POW. ER CO.. Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (154 N. Y. Supp. 1110), entered October 16, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover damages which plaintiff had been compelled to pay because of an injury to its servant caused by the negligence of defendant. The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment was not appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals and that permission to appeal had not been obtained. Frank V. Johnson, of New York City, for the motion. John C. Robinson, of New York City, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10

costs.

BEARDSLEY, Appellant, v. SHERRILL et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 29, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Divi

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and SEABURY, JJ., concur.

BOOTH et al., Respondents, v. SLEE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 29, 1916.)

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 216 N. Y. 745, 111 N. E. 1085.

In re BOYLE. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 7, 1916.) Appeal from orders of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (166 App. Div. 504, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1022), entered April 16, 1915, which affirmed two decrees of the Kings County Surrogate's Court, the first of which removed John H. B. Boyle as one of the executors and trustees under the will of John Boyle, deceased, and the second of which appointed a successor to a deceased executor and trustee. Louis Frankel and Delos McCurdy, both of New York City, for appellant. Joseph G. Quinn, Jr., and Louis B. Hasbrouck, both of New York City, for respondent Boyle. Eugene D. Boyer and Charles Strauss, both of New York City, for respondents Hannah B. Elger and others. Martin B. Faris, of New York City, for respondents Florence M. Bell and others. Myers, of New York City, for respondents Dorothy H. Elger and others. Benjamin H. Newell, of New York City, for respondent John B.

Bell.

John Caldwell

PER CURIAM. Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.

=

BROOKLYN BANK IN CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BOROUGH BANK OF BROOKLYN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 9, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (166 App. Div. 733, 152 N. Y. Supp. 338), entered April 8, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the

the provisions of a final decree of divorce with regard to the payment of alimony from the time of the plaintiff's remarriage. The only question presented herein is whether the plaintiff, notwithstanding her marriage, is entitled to a judgment for the unpaid alimony down to the time of the defendant's application to annul the provisions for the payment of the same. Thomas Moore Simonton, of New York City, for appellant. Henry A. Uterhart and Alfred M. Schaffer, both of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and POUND, JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CARDOZO, J., dissent. SEABURY, J., not voting.

court. The complaint alleges the delivery bying a motion by defendant for the annulment of the Borough Bank of Brooklyn to the Brooklyn Bank of $100,000 Island Cities 5 per cent. gold debentures in payment of an indebtedness of the Borough Bank to the Brooklyn Bank in a like sum. The complaint further alleges that at the time of the delivery of the said bonds the said banks entered into an agreement by which the Borough Bank agreed to repurchase $25,000 worth of the said bonds on April 13, 1911, and $75,000 worth on April 13, 1912. The complaint further alleges the tender of the said bonds in the said amounts on the said dates to the superintendent of banks in charge of appellant, and the refusal of the appellant to accept the same. The demand for judgment is for the full purchase price of the said bonds, plus interest. The defendant contends that inasmuch as the plaintiff apparently used the bonds in question as collateral security after it had tendered the same to the appellant and began an CLICK, Appellant, V. ABENDROTH & action for the purchase price, it cannot recover ROOT MFG. CO., Respondent. (Court of Apthe purchase price, although it admitted that peals of New York. May 9, 1916.) Appeal this is the remedy the respondent elected and from a judgment, entered April 13, 1914, upon pursued, and complains of an insufficient tender an order of the Appellate Division of the Suof the bonds having been made by the respond-preme Court in the Second Judicial Departent because of a certain stamping on the bonds ment (163 App. Div. 862, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1087), which, the appellant argues, changed their iden- reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entity or quality. Joseph A. Kellogg, of Glens tered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal Falls, and Jeremiah T. Mahoney and Vincent of the complaint in an action to recover for perL. Leibell, both of New York City, for appel- sonal injuries alleged to have been sustained by lant. William Winthrop Taylor, of New York plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant, City, for respondent. his employer. The plaintiff's injuries were caused by molten metal spilled from a large ladle which was being carried near where the plaintiff was standing. The cause of the spilling of the metal was that the men who were carrying it, or some of them, “in some manner collided" with other men returning to the furnace for another load. Robert H. Barnett, of Newliam B. Davis, and Amos II. Stephens, all of burgh, for appellant. E. Clyde Sherwood, WilNew York City, for respondent.

PER OURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and COCK, CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, DOZO, and SEABURY, JJ., concur.

HIS-.
CAR-

PER CURIAM.

costs.

Judgment affirmed, with

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

BUTTERICK PUB. CO.. Appellant, v. MISTROT-MUNN CO., Inc., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 14, 1916.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (167 App. Div. 632, 153 N. Y. Supp. 61), entered May 7, 1915, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to a separate defense set up in the answer and overruled said demurrer in an action to recover for defendant's COLEMAN, Respondent, v. McCLENAHAN, refusal to perform a contract for the sale of patented patterns and copyrighted publications at March 21, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. a fixed price. Defendant in its amended answer the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in sets up as a separate and complete defense to the Second Judicial Department (161 App. Div. said cause of action the so-called Texas Anti-941, 145 N. Y. Supp. 1118), entered March 18. Trust Act, approved March 31, 1903 (Acts 28th 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plainLeg. c. 94) alleging that the contracts between tiff entered upon a verdict in an action to rethe parties were by said statute absolutely void cover from defendant one-half the amount aland unenforceable at the time of their execution leged to have been collected upon a judgment in and of defendant's refusal to perform. The fol- favor of the executors of David Stevenson, delowing question was certified: "Is the first sep- eeased (of whom defendant was one), against the arate and complete defense set up in the amended answer to the amended complaint sufficient in founded upon an agreement whereby the defendMutual Brewing Company. law upon the face thereof?" Herbert Noble, Orlando P. Metcalf, and James B. Sheehan, all ant agreed to pay plaintiff fifty per cent. of any of New York City, for appellant. George H.vided the recovery was had through facts and sum collected upon the Stevenson judgment, proSavage, Joseph P. Cotton, and George S. Franklin, all of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Scott, J., below, and question certified answered in the affirmative.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.

The action is

information furnished defendant, or his counsel, by plaintiff. D. Cady Herrick and Thomas J. Farrell, both of New York City, for appellant. John A. Dutton, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

COMEY, Respondent, v. UNITED SURETY CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1916.)

CARY, Respondent, v. CARY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 7, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (168 App. Div. 939, 153 N. Y. Supp. 712), entered June 5, 1915, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term denying a motion for judgment in favor of plaintiff for unpaid alimony and grant-E. 832.

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 217 N. Y. 268, 111 N.

CURTISS, Respondent, v. TELLER, Appel lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 22, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment, entered July 19, 1913, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (157 App. Div. 804, 143 N. Y. Supp. 188), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded in the comWILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HIS-plaint in an action to recover the sum realized COCK, CHASE, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. CUDDEBACK and HOGAN, JJ.,

to

CUSHMAN, Appellant, v. COOK et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (155 N. Y. Supp. 1100), entered November 9, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict in an action recover for alleged false representations. The motion was made upon the ground that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that there was evidence supporting the verdict and that the exceptions were frivolous and presented no question for review. Robert B. Honeyman, of New York City, for the motion. Stuart M. Kohn, of New York City, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10

costs.

DI TOMMASO, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 2, 1916.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (158 N. Y. Supp. 175), entered March 7, 1916, which reversed an order of the court at a Trial Term withdrawing a juror and putting the case over the term on motion of the defendant and imposing a trial fee of $30 and defendant's witness fees to be taxed upon the plaintiff, on trial of an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The following questions were certified: "(1) Was it improper to show upon cross-examination of the witness Stewart, as bearing upon his credibility, that he made the examination of the plaintiff at the request of the insurance company which was interested in the defense DAVID GILMOUR DOOR CO., Appellant, of the action? (2) Was the cross-examination v. SHEA, Sheriff, et al., Respondents. (Court of the witness set forth in the order and tesof Appeals of New York. March 21, 1916.) timony so elicited so improper as to constitute Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Divi- a sufficient irregularity to cause a mistrial? (3) sion of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Did the court have power to impose upon the Department (150 App. Div. 239, 134 N. Y. Supp. plaintiff the trial fee and the defendant's wit919), entered February 10, 1914, affirming a judg-ness fees as stated in the order? (4) If the trial ment in favor of defendants entered upon a dis- court was without power to impose on plaintiff missal of the complaint by the court at Special the costs directed by the order, should the order, Term. The plaintiff recovered a judgment if otherwise proper, have been modified by this against the defendants Daniel Shollenberger and court so as to impose such costs upon plaintiff's Ralph Shollenberger, and an execution was issued attorney?" C. V. Byrne, of Syracuse, for apthereon to the sheriff of the county of New York, pellant. Harry E. Newell, of Syracuse, for re who made a levy upon certain property. The spondent. Iroquois Door Company, Mary P. Shollenberger and Shollenberger & Co. filed third party claims with the sheriff claiming to be owners of the property, giving its value and stating the dam-swered.." age over and above the same which would be suffered if the property were sold under execution. The claims were tried before a sheriff's jury as provided by law, which decided that the property belonged to the claimants. The jury also determined its value and the damages above such value which would be suffered if the levy were not released. The plaintiff declined to give the requisite bond, but instead brought this action by which it seeks to set aside the finding or inquisition of the sheriff's jury, to have this court declare that the judg-|(171 App. Div. 72, 156 N. Y. Supp. 920), enter ment debtors are the owners of the property claimed by the third parties; that such third party claimants have no interest therein, and to require the sheriff to sell said property under said execution. Walter W. Chamberlain and Eugene M. Bartlett, both of Buffalo, for appellant. Francis A. O'Neill and Arleigh Pelham, both of New York City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on dissenting opinion of Laughlin, J., below.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs; first and second questions certified answered in the negative; remaining questions not an

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, COLLIN, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur. CUDDEBACK and HOGAN, JJ., dissent.

DURKEE, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department ed January 11, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term (90 Misc. Rep. 92, 153 N. Y. Supp. 316) in an action to have adjudged unlawful certain provisions of the will of Henry Crandall, deceased. The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously affirmed the findings of fact made by the trial court and that the exceptions were frivolous and presented no question of law for review. Joseph A. Kellogg, Edward M. of Glens Falls, for the motion. Angell, of Glens Falls, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

DILG, Appellant, v. STRAUSS, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 4, In re EASTABROOK'S ESTATE. (Court 1916.) Appeal from a judgment, entered De- of Appeals of New York. March 7, 1916.) Apcember 12, 1913, upon an order of the Appel-peal from an order of the Appellate Division of late Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (158 App. Div. 718, 143 N. Y. Supp. 948), which reversed an order of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the reply and sustaining such demurrer in an action to recover for breach of contract. The question involved was whether the cause of action arose more than six years prior to the date upon which the action was commenced. Howard A. Sperry, of New York City, for appellant. Harry F. Mela and Herbert R. Limburg, both of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and HISCOCK, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, SEABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.

112 N.E.-67

the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 903, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1109) entered May 11, 1915, which affirmed a decree of the Chemung County Surrogate's Court allowing the claim of Charles F. Bullard against the estate of William N. Eastabrook, deceased. The claim was for contribution and was based upon the respective rights and obligations of two indorsers on a promissory note. David N. Heller and Herschel L. Gardner, both of Elmira, for appellant. Frank C. Ogden, of Elmira, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEBACK, COLLIN, CARDOZO, SKABURY, and POUND, JJ., concur.