Case ID: nys_66/html/1133-03.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

HOLLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. SPECTATOR CO., Respondent.
    (No. 6.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,
    July 17, 1900.)
    Action by John E. Hollingsvorth against the Spectator Company. From in interlocutory judgment overruling the plainiff’s demurrer to paragraphs 4 and 6 of defendant's answer, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Henry T. Fay, for appellant. Franklin Bartett, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in he opinion in Hollingsworth v. Spectator Co. action No. 1, handed down herewith) 65 N. Y. Supp. 812, the interlocutory judgment should ie affirmed, with costs.