The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-20
Motion dsnisd with sis costs.

company Motion denied With eie costs
Lorsns Reich VS. Alexander s. Cochran.
q Al. Motion srsnted; questions certified.
Hernsn Brill VS.. Louis Abrs mowi,s Mo-
ton granted settle order on notice. q,
Trsfts. Notion FOR new rial granted. Settle
Leon Levy. ". Mari. NJ wolt.. ct al
David Rothschiid vs., interboroush Rapid
Transit Company. Molten for resrgument or
memorandum per curtain. Settle order on
notice.
reversed with 80 costs and disbursement.
and application denied without prejudice TO
rs .a,;. az or s,.,.S opinion Opinion
Benz 4 Gle; responden,, VS.. Jesse Froeiich.
and o.ser mSs ss .:m s1r'S %.hol,
the opncu per OF f sst.s, oras
vices as attorneys determined and enforced
against Isaac voron and Leon voron. appel
disbursements. No opinion. order nisd.
In the matter Of Daniel CUNNINGHAM. DE-.
S Sss.fsd Order Order az, stnrmsd with costs No
Edgar A. Reineke, respondent. ". the
Tsx Tx So%nsny En-, Spgssn, o5dsr GnS
Asrsbsm ysiismsn. t..Pona.n'. ys sidney
ar%.d; With SO cost. and Disbursements.
:s os:s, c ssfssE az.
Glinora Tss,i. Ss%rsny, i.'pchdeHt Or.
ments. No opinion. order niet
Nellie e. Peck. respondent. Va. Nehring
GG%paP 3ide f SS@s.o S HlP0,,is0n
disbursemsn,s, and motion denied with $40
eo mo GpnBtS ssua 9[d1 In n ssS.t Of him
self. &C, and smother appellants, VS. John
W, MeKlnnon ct al respondsnis order az
Mo meepinion n order q i,ied. anu o'''u'''"0"''
= r., Augustus Heinze. appellant. VS. Assets
No opinion. Order nlsd.
sins and William Hopkins. a, sxseuiofs,
&c. appellants. order affirmed. with SO
costs costs and AND disbursement" No opinion
:, Adolf Mapd.l. appellant ". David Hop
respondents. order affirmed, with 30
costs and disbursements. No opinion. or
wiiiism A.; Evans a. trustee; &C; rs.p.Sn
dent dent, vs. Rubber Goods Ma,n n.s ri,
SO cost. and Gpedi sbur.e3snis No opinion. '
In the mater OF the Application 81 A.
; %.h I costs s.s''. and dso orasT S
opinion. order nlsd. -.
os. frRRS s,.si. ' p,. nsra:s! Gcm
80 costs and disbursements. NO opinion
r,ch.ris: Horwi.1 respondent, vs., V ps,Y.
f sTR.S Epfesn,. i In: sn%' COMPANY
I; a e; the same vs. Eauitsble Fire 4
S.a q. d,rsS,sd IN oOinIon ana as . moSi
Ned affirmed witheut costs Opinion pei
curtain. Settle order on notice:
state Commissioner OF Excise. &c. respon
dent. VS. Gustaye sehultze. appellant, or
mens. on opinion. Greenbaum. J. orde
Harry Kirshman. doing business a
Plummer COMPANY appellant order az
No opinion order nled
Asphalt Paving 4 Contracting Compan,
sp pS' order Alarmed With SO cost
and disbursements No opinion. orde
Asphalt Paving q Contracting Company
spondent. order affirmed with so costs an
disbursements. No opinion. order nlod
spondent, vs.. Henry Leerburger Boeru
.eerburger. appellants. order affirmed wit
$40 costs and disbursements No opinion
Cora Stern, respondent appellant "
plaintiffs appeal order affirmed withou
cos,s on dsfendan.'s appeal order reverse
and motion granted without costs y
Cora Stern. respondent. VS.. David r. stsrr
appellant. order reversed and m Urt,
nled.
Eb.sr, rireproonns a Gypsum Block Com
pany. appellant. VS. II. y. Sturtevsnt Com
pany, respondent. order affirmed with "
costs and disbursements. No opinion. ord'
nied.
Matte Vaughn sissel. rsspond.n, y
Henry SieEel. appellant. order sfhrme
, with $40 costs and disbursements No opir
ion. order hled.
Metropolitan Lite Insurance. Company. 7,
DG.as&, o,d hSh md SGyss Heinz S.o st
opinion and as modified affirmed withol
costs. opinion per curiam- Settle order o
: notice.
Walter schultze. appellant. VS.. Oscar Hut
linger. respondent. order affirmed wit
$40 costs and disburssmen;s. No opinion
, order hled.
Walter schultzs. appellant, VS.. Oscar Hut
linger, respondent, order affirmed with 81
costs ana disbursements. No opinion. OF
der filed.
The Otis Lithogrsph Company. plaintiff
vs. Ralph II. Nryan, appellant lmplesde
with John g, Fischer. respondent. ord'
reversed with $40 costs and disbursement
and motion denied with $40 costs. No opir
|, ion, order filed
Merchants National Bank vs., Santa Mar
Sugar Company, Motion for leave to 20
] 0f al rd