Case Name: William S. Gottshall, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant; Gardner Brockway, Respondent, v. Syracuse Lighting Company, Appellant; Phoebe Hatch and Others, Respondents, v. Willis Luckman, Appellant; The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Hatch and Phoebe Hatch, Respondents, v. Cornelius Carpenter and Others, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of Frederick M. Broadbrooks, as Receiver, etc., for the Removal of William E. Genno and Another from Certain Premises in the City of Buffalo. Martin Luber, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. William J. Connors, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-03
Citations: 149 A.D. 937
Docket Number: 
Parties: William S. Gottshall, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant. Gardner Brockway, Respondent, v. Syracuse Lighting Company, Appellant. Phoebe Hatch and Others, Respondents, v. Willis Luckman, Appellant. The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Hatch and Phoebe Hatch, Respondents, v. Cornelius Carpenter and Others, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of Frederick M. Broadbrooks, as Receiver, etc., for the Removal of William E. Genno and Another from Certain Premises in the City of Buffalo. Martin Luber, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. William J. Connors, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 937–937

Head Matter:
William S. Gottshall, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant. Gardner Brockway, Respondent, v. Syracuse Lighting Company, Appellant. Phoebe Hatch and Others, Respondents, v. Willis Luckman, Appellant. The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Hatch and Phoebe Hatch, Respondents, v. Cornelius Carpenter and Others, Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of Frederick M. Broadbrooks, as Receiver, etc., for the Removal of William E. Genno and Another from Certain Premises in the City of Buffalo. Martin Luber, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. William J. Connors, Respondent.

Opinion:
The foregoing cases, having been twice passed upon being reached in then* regular order, are dismissed, with costs, under general rule 39.