that the damages allowed by the commissioners were grossly inadequate. Ferdinand Pecora, of New York City, for appellants. Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Andrew C. Troy and Howard L. Campion, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

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

office said certificate together with all the necessary papers, and demanded that the same be transferred on its books to the purchaser. The demand having been refused, this action followed. The defense was that the situs of the stock was either in Bermuda, where the decedent was domiciled, or in New Jersey, the home of the defendant corporation; hence the plaintiff, as an executor appointed here, had no title to the stock. The following question was certified: "Is the plaintiff entitled to judgment upon the pleadings?" William W. Corlett, Raynal C. Bolling, and Charles MacVeagh, all of New York City, for appellant. Robert L. Redfield, of New York City, for respondent.

and question certified answered in the affirma

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed with costs,

tive.

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

LINTIG V. JENKINS et al. (Court of Ap; peals of New York. March 24, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (160 App. Div. 887, 144 N. Y. Supp. 1125), entered January 12, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The allegations of the complaint, so far as material on this appeal, are to the effect that plaintiff was the owner of the leasehold of certain premises on the southwest corner of Walker and Lafayette streets, divided only by a party wall from premises of the defendant Jenkins; that the defendant Jenkins, in May and June, 1907, employed the defendant Corning Company to tear down her buildings adjoining the plaintiffs and to construct a new building; that the defendants, while the work of excavating for the foundation of the new buildings was in progress and "intending to excavate to a great depth," negligently demolish-contract for public work. It is conceded that ed and took away some part of the party wall or failed to leave sufficient support for plaintiff's building, and negligently weakened same and its foundations and removed its supports with out shoring up and bracing and underpinning same; that by reason of the premises, on June 25, 1907, plaintiff's building collapsed, to his damage in the loss of property of the value of $8,000, of an additional $1,500 which he had paid immediately prior to the collapse for improvements, in the loss of profits and business in the further sum of $5,000, and in value of his lease in the further sum of $12.500, in all $27,000. The answer of the respondents contains denials of all the material allegations of the complaint. George H. D. Foster and Enoch Walter Earle, both of New York City, for appellant. H. A. Cushing, of New York City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

LOCKWOOD, Respondent, V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 25, 1916.) Ap peal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (155 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered November 19, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for judgment in his favor upon the pleadings. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff is the executor of the will of Mary Adelaide Zuill, deceased, appointed by the Surrogate's Court of New York county; that the decedent was a resident of Bermuda; that she owned a certificate of forty shares of stock in the defendant corporation, which was actually in this state at the time of her death; that the plaintiff, in the ordinary course of administration, sold said shares, and desired to have same transferred to the purchaser; that the defendant is a foreign corporation, and maintains an office in the city of New York, where it receives stock for transfer, and where it delivers new certificates after transfer has been made; that plaintiff tendered to the defendant at the said

LORD ELECTRIC CO., Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Ap peals of New York. Feb. 1. 1916.) Appeal the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Departfrom a judgment of the Appellate Division of ment (160 App. Div. 344, 145 N. Y. Supp. 205), entered January 28, 1914, reversing a judgment rected by the court and directing a dismissal of in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict_dithe complaint in an action_to recover upon a due thereon have been paid except a sum reservthe contract was completed and that all moneys ed by the city because it claimed it was damaged in that amount by reason of two fires which occurred on the work through the carelessness of plaintiff, its agents and servants. Frederick Hulse, of New York City, for appellant. Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Terence Farley, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

LOWENSTEIN, Appellant, v. KOCH, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 14, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the 152 N. Y. Supp. 506), entered February 5, 1915, First Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 760, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for judgment in his favor upon the pleadings. The complaint sets forth in substance that plaintiff duly recovered a judgment against one Friedman in the sum of $1,523.63. which was duly entered and docketed in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on May 24, 1912; that thereafter execution in due form was issued to the sheriff of the proper county and was returned by him unsatisfied; that there is now due to plaintiff on said judgment the sum of $1,523.63, with interest; that supplementary proceedings were duly commenced against said Friedman, which are still pending and have not been terminated that about August 8, 1899, said Friedman insured his life in the New York Life Insurance Company in the sum of $5,000 by policy No. 973,090 in favor of his executors, administrators or assigns, or to such beneficiary as said Friedman might designate; that said policy contained a clause permitting said Friedman to change his beneficiary at will; that on or about April 9. 1900, said Friedman designated his sister, the defendant herein, as such beneficiary; that said Friedman died on February 15, 1914. without having ever assigned said policy and that on said date said policy was in full force and effect; that by reason of the foregoing plaintiff

ent.

Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respond- | peal was frivolous and presented no question of law for review. Louis Lowenstein, of New York City, for the motion. William K. Hartpence, of New York City, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Order reversed, with costs, and claim dismissed, on the opinion in Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger & Sons, 218 N. Y. 84, 112 N. E. 567.

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

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

MAMARONECK SASH, DOOR & TRIM CO., Inc., v. WOOD et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 25, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (170 App. Div. 950, 155 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered November 19, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the required undertak-out any appearance on behalf of defendant, said ing and return. William Baruch, of Port Chester, for the motion.

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

MANHATTAN R. CO., Appellant, v. WINGERT et al., Respondents. SAME. Appellant, v. BOCKAR et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 14, 1916.) Appeal in each of the above-entitled proceedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (155 N. Y. Supp. 1123), entered January 11, 1916, affirming an order of Special Term in a proceeding, instituted under title 1 of chapter 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condemn streets easements of light, air and access required for additional elevated railway facilities in the city of New York. The proceedings were instituted subsequent to the plaintiff's entry upon the streets in front of certain of the abutting properties. The following question was certified in the first entitled proceeding: "In the above-entitled proceeding had the Special Term of the Supreme Court power to make the order dated 15th day of May, 1915, directing the commissioners of appraisal herein, in addition to 'the compensation to be made to the owners for the property to be taken for the public use specified,' also to ascertain any damages which the defendant owners of said parcels in the aboveentitled proceedings may have sustained and may hereafter sustain by reason of any entry upon and use by plaintiff of defendants' said property?' In the second entitled proceeding the same question was certified, except that the order therein mentioned was dated April 29, 1915. J. Osgood Nichols, Francis S. Williams, and James L. Quackenbush, all of New York City, for appellant. Arthur Furber, of New York City, Edgar M. Cullen, 'of Brooklyn, and Jacob W. Bermant and Banton Moore, both of New York City, for respondents.

"

PER CURIAM. Order in each case affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE. COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur. SEABURY, J., not voting.

MAYER et al., Respondents, v. RAUDENBUSH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 1, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (154 App. Div. 937, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1133), entered February 7, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by the court in state of Pennsylvania. It appears by the recan action upon a judgment recovered in the ord of the judgment introduced in evidence that on March 7, 1897, attorneys on behalf of plaintiffs applied for judgment without any process having been served upon defendant, and withattorneys presenting thereupon a judgment note payable on demand signed by defendant, wherein defendant authorized any attorney of any court of record of Pennsylvania or elsewhere to appear for and to enter judgment against defendant for the amount of the note, and thereupon the judgment sued upon herein was rendered upon the said note in favor of plaintiffs against this defendant without any such appearance. It appears also by the same record of the Philadelphia judgment introduced in evidence, that after said judgment was rendered certain garnishee proceedings were instituted thereupon by the plaintiffs against two persons named Wolf. In defense of this action defendant in his answer herein pleaded, among other things, that the judgment note was executed and deliv ered by the defendant to the plaintiffs with the express understanding and agreement that said note or any judgment entered thereupon was to be used solely for the purpose of enabling plaintiffs, as agents of this defendant, to institute garnishee proceedings against the two Wolfs, who, at the date of said note, were indebted to defendant, and that, if successful in recovering any moneys from said Wolfs in such garnishee proceedings, plaintiffs were to turn over and account to this defendant for any moneys so had or received. Upon the trial all testimony tending to establish this defense was ruled out. Theodore F. Kuper, of New York City, for appellant. David J. Gallert and Walter S. Heilborn, both of New York City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

MILLER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 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 (163 App. Div. 972, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered June 29, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in permitting a defect to remain in one of its sidewalks, by stepping into which plaintiff alleged she received the injuries complained of. Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, MARKS, Respondent, v. KELLOGG, Appel- of New York City (Edward A. Freshman and lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 29, Thomas F. Magner, both of Brooklyn, of coun1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a sel), for appellant. Adolph L. Pincoffs, of New judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su-York City, and Frederick S. Martyn, of Brookpreme Court in the First Judicial Department lyn, for respondent. (170 App. Div. 464, 156 N. Y. Supp. 120), entered December 16, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon. the report of a referee in an action to recover a legacy. The motion was made upon the ground that the ap

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

ed upon a verdict in an action to recover for MOORE & MUNGER CO., Respondent, v. personal injuries alleged to have been sustained MOTOR TRADES PUB. CO., Appellant. by plaintiff through the negligence of defend(Court of Appeals of New York. March 14, ant, his employer. The complaint alleges that 1916.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of plaintiff was injured by the breaking of a guy the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court rope on a hoisting apparatus then being used in the First Judicial Department (170 App. in the construction of the subway. When the Div. 779, 155 N. Y. Supp. 929) entered No guy rope broke, the gin pole hoist fell, and vember 26, 1915, which affirmed an order of plaintiff, who was standing on a steel girder, Special Term overruling a demurrer to the was struck by one of the wire guys and knockcomplaint in an action for libel. This actioned off the girder to the bottom of the subway. is brought to recover damages for the publica- Hector M. Hitchings, of New York City, for tion by defendant in its trade journal Auto- appellant. Thomas J. O'Neill and Leonard F. mobile Topics of the following article concern- Fish, both of New York City, for respondent. ing the plaintiff on the contention that it conPER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with tains matter libelous per se: "Moore & Munger Plant is Sold. The automobile body-building

costs.

COCK, CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN,
WILLARD BARTLETT. C. J., and HIS-
CARDOZO, and POUND, JJ., concur.

plant of Moore & Munger at 602 West FiftySecond Street, New York City, has been purchased by the Universal Auto Painting Company. The latter will continue the body-building work of Moore & Munger and will also do MURPHY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK general repairing and painting work. The firm TELEPHONE CO., Appellant. (Court of Apof Moore & Munger went into bankruptcy sev-peals of New York. Feb. 29, 1916.) Motion to eral months ago, due, it was said, to the losses sustained in the failure of the Palmer Singer and Benz Companies in New York." The following question was certified: "Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?" William F. Goldbeck and Herman Goldman, both of New York City, for appellant. L. E. Warren, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative.

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

MOREY et al., Appellants, v. SCHUSTER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 4, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment, entered January 2, 1914, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (159 App. Div. 602, 145 N. Y. Supp. 258), which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for judgment dismissing the complaint upon the pleadings and granted said motion in an action to impress as a lien upon real property a claim for services rendered by plaintiff's as attorneys in connection with the premises. Joseph H. Morey and Norris Morey, both of Buffalo, for appellants. Walter W. Chamberlain and Eugene M. Bartlett, both of Buffalo, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

MOREY et al., Appellants, v. SCHUSTER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 21, 1916.)

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 217 N. Y., 112 N. E. 1066. It is conceded by respondents as one ground of opposition to this motion that under the provisions of section 405 of the Code of Civil Procedure the statute of limitations cannot be invoked as a defense to an action by the appellants to recover the value of their services.

MUENCH, Respondent, v. STEEL & MASONRY CONTRACTING CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 24, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial, Department (155 App. Div. 409, 140 N. Y. Supp. 330), entered March 10, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enter

dismiss an appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (154 N. Y. Supp. 1134), entered September 16, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant. The motion was made upon the grounds that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous and that the exceptions were frivolous. Cornelius E. Fitzgerald, of Glens Falls, for the motion. John A. Delehanty, of Albany, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

NAPPA, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 22, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (162 App. Div. 922, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1102), entered March 17, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer. The complaint alleged that plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant as a freight handler at the city of Buffalo was unloading a car placed by the side of and about three feet from defendant's freight house in which work a skid furnished by the defendant to connect the car with the platform of the freight house was provided; that defendant's superintendent neglected to order said skid safely secured, negligently directed plaintiff to assist in unloading freight without providing a safe and proper place for him to work, and that while engaged pursuant to the directions of the superintendent of the defendant as aforesaid and in ignorance that the skid was improperly secured and unsafe, it fell by and through the negligence of the defendant and its superintendent as aforesaid, throwing plaintiff to the ground and precipitating a heavy barrel of freight upon him, causing the injuries complained of. Adelbert Moot, John W. Ryan, and Helen Z. M. Rodgers, all of Buffalo, for appellant. Walter W. Chamberlain and Eugene M. Bartlett, both of Buffalo, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Kruse, J., 155 App. Div. 9, 139 N. Y. Supp. 547.

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

NATIONAL SURETY CO., Respondent, v. WINSTON et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 11, 1916.) Appeal

from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (161 App. Div. 594, 146 N. Y. Supp. 825), entered April 6, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. Defendants having been awarded a contract by the city of New York procured an undertaking from the Empire State Surety Company which thereafter became insolvent and reinsured all of its risks with plaintiff, assigning to it all of its good will, agreements of insurance and reinsurance, indemnity agreements and the like, plaintiff agreeing on its part to assume and fulfill all the outstanding contracts of the Empire State Surety Company. Neither the city of New York nor defendants were parties to this agreement, nor so far as appears have consented to it, but on the other hand it does not appear that the city has called on defendants to substitute other security. This action is for a premium which fell due and which defendants refused to pay. A. T. Clearwater, of Kingston, for appellants. William R. Page, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

late Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (161 App. Div. 67, 146 N. Y. Supp. 284), entered March 25, 1914, in favor of defendant upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement for the sale of muriatic acid. By said agreement the plaintiff was to ship 500 empty carboys to remain without charge in the defendant's possession during the life of said contract, which carboys were to be used by the defendant for the storage of muriatic acid. The contract provided: "These carboys to be returned at the end of contract term, and all carboys not so returned to be paid for by buyer at $2 each." The contract term expired and the defendant failed to return 470 of the carboys which the plaintiff had sent it or pay for the same. These carboys were destroyed by a flood, and the defendant's contention is that it is, therefore, excused from either returning the carboys or paying for them according to the terms of the contract. Parton Swift, of Buffalo, for appellant. Harry T. Klein, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

sent.

S. PALMER et al., Appellants, v. STATE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 29, 1916.)

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 217 N. Y. 111 N. E. 211.

NEWHOUSE, Appellant, v. DE SOLA, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 18, 1916.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (159 N. Y. Supp. 1130), entered November 19, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the answer. The motion was made upon the ground that the order of the Appellate Division was not appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals and that permission to appeal had not been ob-pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. PARKER, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Aptained; that the appellant had failed to per- 22, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Apfect the appeal by filing the required undertak-pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the ing and that said appellant had failed to prepare and file the return. Mark G. Holstein, of New York City, for the motion.

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

NEW ROCHELLE WATER CO., Respondent, v. POND, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 24, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (163 App. Div. 873, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1129), entered April 15, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term which adjudged that the defendant is under a contract obligation with the plaintiff to abide by the rules and regulations adopted by the plaintiff in the conduct of its business, requiring the installation of a meter for the purpose of determining the quantity of water used, and of checking waste, and permanently enjoining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the installation and maintenance of such meter, and from refusing to permit access to the premises. Henry G. K. Heath, of New York City, for appellant. John J. Crennan, of New Rochelle, and Edwin T. Rice, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

Fourth Judicial Department (161 App. Div. 909, 145 N. Y. Supp. 1137), entered January 16, entered upon a verdict in an action to recover 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The complaint alleged that plaintiff while crossing defendant's right of way caught his foot in a defect in said crossing and while endeavoring to extricate it was run down by a train receiving the injuries complained of. Wallace Dempsey, Alan V. Parker, and Allen T. John W. Ryan, of Buffalo, for appellant. S. Stewart, all of Niagara Falls, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, and CARDOZO, JJ., concur. CUDDEBACK, J., dissents. HISCOCK, J., not voting. POUND, J., not sitting.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOVA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 21, 1916.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (170 App. Div. 51, 155 N. Y. Supp. 532), entered November 5, 1915, which affirmed a judgment rendered at a Trial Term for the county of Westchester upon a verdict in the second degree. John J. Hughes, of White convicting the defendant of the crime of murder Plains, for appellant. Frederick E. Weeks, Dist. Atty., of White Plains, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction ȧffirmed. V.

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

NIAGARA ALKALI CO., Appellant, CHAMPION COATED PAPER CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 22, 1916.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appel

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