required by the General Corporation Law. Second, that the Refugio Syndicate, a foreign corporation, conducted business in the State of New York without the certificate required by section 15 of the General Corporation Law of this state. Third, that there had been assigned and transferred in the city of New York 2,000 shares of said stock without payment of the tax required by chapter 241 of the Laws of 1905. Charles A. Decker for appellant. Philip Russell and Burt D. Whedon for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND and ANDREWS, JJ. WILLIAM H. GREIS et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Greis v. APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 11, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as copartners and joint owners of certain real property located in the city of Syracuse, and adjoining North State street and Ash street as laid out on the map. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property described as Ash street, and had been for many years; that the property had been occupied by the plaintiffs and their grantors as a coal yard and that the plaintiffs and their grantors had for many years erected and maintained buildings and structures covering the premises and expended large sums of money in the erection and maintenance of the structures and plants upon the property. It alleged further that the city had threatened to eject them from the property and demanded judgment that the defendant, its officers, agents and servants be perpetually restrained from entering upon or interfering with the lands described in the complaint, or from exercising any control over or doing any work upon the same as a public street. The answer of the defendant alleged that the property in question was a street and that it was the duty of the city to keep the street open; that the plaintiffs were in possession, defendant had demanded possession, and demanded judgment that the plaintiffs be ordered to remove the buildings from the premises in question. Frank E. Young for appellants. Frank Hopkins and Stewart F. Hancock for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO and POUND, JJ. Not voting: HIS COCK, Ch. J. Not sitting: ANDREWS, J. MINNIE B. EDWARDS, Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. Edwards v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 175 App. Div. 913, affirmed. (Argued December 13, 1918; decided January 7, 1919.) APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 25, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action upon a policy of accident insurance. The complaint alleged that on the 15th day of March, 1909, one Austin M. Edwards obtained a policy of insurance from the defendant which insured him against "bodily injuries sustained by him" through accidental means, and resulting directly, independently and exclusively of all other causes "in death, and against blood poisoning resulting from bodily injury sustained through accidental means; that on or about January 14, 1915, the said Edwards became afflicted with blood poisoning, resulting directly from a bodily injury, consisting of a cut or abrasion of the skin at the back of his neck, sustained through accidental means, and resulting directly, independently and exclusively of all other causes in his death. The answer admitted the issuance of the policy, and the death of the insured, but denied that death was caused by bodily injury sustained through accidental means, and resulting directly, independently and exclusively of all other causes, or that blood poisoning resulted directly from bodily injury within the meaning of the policy. Carlton E. Ladd for appellant. Irving W. Cole and Hamilton Ward for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDE BACK, CARDOZO, POUND and ANDREWS, JJ. ANNIE M. GREENE, Respondent, v. MARY A. GREENE, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. Greene v. Greene, 174 App. Div. 882, affirmed. (Argued December 13, 1918; decided January 7, 1919.) APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1916, 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 mortgage. The answer set up a defense of res adjudicata, alleging that in a prior action between the same parties it had been adjudged that the mortgage had been satisfied of record. (See 215 N. Y. 651.) Charles A. Webber for appellant. Herbert C. Smyth, John W. Browne, Frederic C. Scofield and Roderic Wellman for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND and ANDREWS, JJ. JULIA E. COOK, Respondent, v. THE PEOPLE'S MILK Cook v. People's Milk Co., 175 App. Div. 966, affirmed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 24, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. This action is for negligence for alleged injury caused to plaintiff by consuming milk which, it is alleged in the plaintiff's bill of particulars, contained phosphorous. The complaint alleged that the milk was sold to plaintiff by a grocer who had purchased the same in a bottle from the defendant. The complaint sets forth two causes of action, the first based on negligence and the second on warranty. The second cause of action was dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case, and no appeal was taken by plaintiff. The question, therefore, was whether or not the plaintiff proved that the milk at the time it left defendant's plant contained phosphorous due to negligence of defendant. Walter Jeffreys Carlin for appellant. Ralph S. Kent and W. Bartlett Sumner for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND and ANDREws, JJ. WILLIAM H. JENKINS, Respondent, v. CHESTER B. TEED, Appellant. Jenkins v. Teed, 174 App. Div. 900, affirmed. (Submitted December 12, 1918; decided January 14, 1919.) APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered July 14, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the alleged conversion of certain cows. The answer contained a general denial and an allegation of ownership and possession in a third person from whom defendant acquired title by purchase. Charles R. O'Connor for appellant. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND and ANDREWS, JJ. JOHN J. CALLANAN, Respondent, v. EMILY M. KEENAN, as Executrix of DANIEL F. KEENAN, Deceased, Appellant. (Submitted January 6, 1919; decided January 14, 1919.) Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 224 N. Y. 503.) EUGENE A. RUDIGER et al., Appellants, v. JAMES S. COLEMAN et al., Respondents. Reported below, 184 App. Div. 897. (Argued January 6, 1919; decided January 14, 1919.) MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered August 2, 1918, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment entered upon the report of a referee bringing up for review intermediate orders. The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Edwin J. Freedman for motion. John C. Wait opposed. Per Curiam. We think that the judgment entered upon the report of the referee as modified and affirmed by the Appellate Division is appealable to this court and, therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. |