Case ID: nys_65/html/1136-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOLMES, BOOTH & HAYDENS, Respondent, v. FABER, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 22, 1900.)
    Action by Holmes, Booth & Hay-dens against Eberhard Faber. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new 'trial, defendant appeals. Reversed. Charles T. Haviland, for appellant. D. M. Porter, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

In this case the same question is presented as in the case of Leonard v. Faber (decided herewith) 65 N. Y. Supp. 391. It arises in the same way and must be determined upon the same considerations. The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

VAN BRUNT, P. J., dissents.