Jessie V. SIMONS, appellant, v. Manuel J. JOHNSON, as Treasurer, etc., respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 10, 1919.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The allegations of the complaint, construed most favorably to plaintiff, do not show that she was possessed of any office that had any definite tenure of continuance under the by-laws or rules of the association. The position she held was a mere administrative agency, subject to be terminated at any time, with or without cause, at the pleasure of the governing board of the association. The principles applicable to the expulsion of members from corporations, or the amotion of officers having definite terms of -office, or the expulsion of members from voluntary associations, do not apply. In the Matter of the Application of Anna W. SIMPSON, as General Guardian, etc. In re Richard C. BONDY et al., Trustees, etc. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order filed. Paul SINNEK, appellant, v. BEADLESTON & WOERZ, respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 17, 1919.) Appeal dismissed, witsout costs. Herbert S. SISSON, as State Commissioner of Excise, appellant, v. Vincenzo GENEEDA, respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 3, 1919.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., and Mills, Rich, Kelly, and Jaycox, JJ., concur. SKANDIA PACIFIC OIL ENGINE CO., Respt., v. CHRISTOFFER HANNEVIG, Inc., and another, impld., etc., Applts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 28, 1919.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, the date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. No opinion. Settle order on notice. George I. SKINNER v. Annie N. ALEXANDER, as Ex'x, etc., impleaded. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. David S. SKINNER, appellant, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY, respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 17, 1919.) Арpeal dismissed, without costs. George I. SKINNER, as Supt. of Banks, v. Alice M. PHIPPS, as Executrix and Trustee, etc., impleaded. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. George I. SKINNER v. PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. et al., impleaded, etc. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. George I. SKINNER v. George T. ROGERS, impleaded, etc. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. George L. SKINNER, etc., as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, respondent, v. David A. SULLIVAN, defendant, Home Bank of Brooklyn and William A. Main, appellants, and others, defendants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 31, 1919.) Reargument ordered, and case set down for Monday, November 10, 1919. In the matter of the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, made by Meyer SLUTZKY, alleged dependent father, Dorothy Slutzky, dependent mother, and by the dependent sister and dependent brother of William Slutzky, on account of the death of William Slutzky, deceased, respts., v. LUDWIG BAUMANN & COMPANY, employer, and Standard Accident Insurance Company, of Detroit, Mich., insurance carrier, applts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 12, 1919.) Award unanimously affirmed. Robert W. SMITH, Jr., appellant, v. Albert KOONZ, respondent, and Harold A. Koonz, defendant. (Appeal No. 1.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 10, 1919.) Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The circumstances disclosed in the af fidavit are such as to justify the court that made the order for the examination of defendant in acting upon an affidavit made by plaintiff's attorney. The case falls within the principle of Oshinsky v. Gumberg, 188 App. Div. Robert W. SMITH, Jr., appellant, v. Albert KOONZ, defendant, and Harold A. Koonz, respondent. (Appeal No. 2.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 10, 1919.) Order reversed, with 10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $:3 costs, on authority of Smith v. Koonz (Appea No 1.) 189 App. Div. 913, 178 N. Y. Supp. 920, decided herewith. Jenks, P. J., and Mills, Rich, Blackmar, and Kelly, JJ., concur. In the matter of the claim of Matthew J. SMITH, for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, v. L. E. ELLIS & SON, employer, and Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, Ltd., insurance carrier, applts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 12, 1919.) Award unanimously affirmed. May Belle SMITH v. Henry Hammond SMITH, applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 1, 1919.) Order affirmed. No costs are allowed upon this appeal, for the reason that respondent's counsel did not appear upon the argument nor file brief. All concur. Eugene SMITH, respondent, v. L. Edith SMITH, appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 7, 1919.) Motion granted, with $10 costs. Matter of Charles A. SMYTHWICK, an attorney. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. December 5, 1919.) Respondent's motion to reopen hearing before the referee and take further testimony denied. Settle order on notice. Charles J. SODERBERY, respondent, v. LAURELTON LAND COMPANY, appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 3, 1919.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. We think that the Feldblum Case, 151 App. Div. 24, 135 N. Y. Supp. 349, and 210 N. Y. 594, 104 N. E. 1129, is still authority for a situation such as proven here; that is, where the contemplated or represented improvements have been abandoned, and not merely delayed, as was the situation in the Brede Case, 216 N. Y. 247, 110 Ν. Ε. 430. In other words, we think that the decision in the Brede Case should not be regarded as having impaired the authority of the Feldblum Case in that respect. Jenks, P. J., and Mills, Rich, Putnam, and Blackmar, JJ., 23, 176 N. Y. Supp. 406, in that the examination is for the purpose of proving plaintiff's case only. The facts shown to the court indicate that the defendants, and they alone, have personal knowledge of exactly what was done in the operation upon plaintiff's mouth. Those facts the plaintiff must prove, and, as the defendants alone have the knowledge, their examination is material and necessary to the plaintiff's case. Jenks, P. J., and Mills, Rich, Blackmar, and Kelly, JJ., concur. concur. Samuel SOLOMON, Applt.. v. UNION SAVINGS BANK OF THE CITY OF AUGUSTA, GA., Respt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di L (178 N.Y.S.) vision, First Department. December 5, 1919.) Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Order filed. Harris SPEVAK, respt., v. Edward McMAHON, applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. September 22, 1919.) Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Hubbs, J., not sitting. Moritz D. SPITZER, Applt., v. CHILDS COMPANY, Respt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 31, 1919.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order filed. In the matter of the claim of Maryanna SPODBALSKI, widow, on behalf of herself and infant child, on account of the death of Martin STELLJES and Anna J. Stelljes, appellants, v. NORTH SIDE BANK OF BROOKLYN, respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 31, 1919.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In the absence of any al legation in the complaint that plaintiffs have paid the $8,000 secured by the bond and mortgage, it is difficult to perceive upon what theory their demand is based. Nor is there any allegation of return or tender of the note, the amount of which they seek to recover in this action. In any event the defense interposed in the answer raises an issue for trial. Jenks, P. J., and Mills, Putnam, Blackmar, and Kelly, JJ., concur. Charles STEMBERG, respondent, v. Lladyslava STEMBERG, appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 17, 1919.) Motion denied, without costs. Emanuel J. STERN, appellant, v. ACME Frank Spodbalski, deceased, claimant, respt., MALTING COMPANY, respondent. (Su under Workmen's Compensation Law, v. LALANCE & GROSJEAN MFG. COMPANY, employer, and Globe Indemnity Company, in surance carrier, applts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 21, 1919.) Award unanimously affirmed. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 14, 1919.) Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Eva STERN, Applt., v. Fannie BROMBERG, Respt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 28, 1919.) Order, so far as appealed from, modified, by denying the motion as to the third, fourth, and fifth specifications of particulars, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant. No opinion. Order filed. Leonore R. STERN, Respt., v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 21, 1919.) Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Order filed. Pauline STERNBERGER and another, as executors and trustees, etc., respondents, v. Randolph M. SMILEY, appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 17, 1919.) Appeal dismissed, without costs. Morris STILLERMAN and another, respondents, v. Joe HANDELSMAN, appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department. October 10, 1919.) Application denied, without costs. Christine STOCK, respondent, v. August KNIPPENBERG, appellant, and Lord & Taylor and Eleto Company, defendants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De partment. October 31, 1919.) imously affirmed, with costs. Judgment unan-proceeding, as it is limited to lands within Maude R. STODDARD v. John M. STODDARD. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Арplication denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. Maude R. STODDARD, Respt., v. John M. STODDARD, Applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 7, 1919.) Motion granted, and application for leave to appeal granted. Order signed. Howard STREETER, respt., v. Eugene N. FOSS, applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 21, 1919.) Judgment and order reversed, on the ground that the damages are excessive, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict to $10,000 and interest, in which event the judgment is so modified, and, as so modified, judgment and order affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur, except Woodward and Cochrane, JJ., who vote for affirmance. Daniel F. STROBEL, respt. v. PRESS COMPANY, applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 8. 1919.) Judgment and order affirmed, with All concur; De Angelis, J., not sitting. In the matter of the petition of Leita H. STRATTON, to compel James E. Bennet, to render and settle his account as one of the executors of Horatio Mulford Stratton, deceased. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 7, 1919.) The record discloses that the item of $686.13, with which the accountant is surcharged, was money loaned to Warner from objectant's personal funds, was a personal transaction, and not a proper subject for surcharge. The item of costs. $45.36 had been accounted for in the so-called agent's account, and the item of $883, with which the accountant was surcharged, was a part of appellant's charge for legal services, and was chargeable upon objectant's interest, not on the estate, and the surrogate was with out power to disallow any portion thereof. The decree as to these items is reversed. The motion for a rehearing should have been granted, to give accountant an opportunity to show the disbursements which appear from the agent's account, and which might properly offset the surcharges of items $622.51 and $257.33. The order of the Surrogate's Court of Kings County, denying motion for a rehearing, is therefore reversed, and the matter remitted to the surrogate, to take further proof, with costs to appellant. Jenks, P. J., and Mills, Rich, Kelly, and Jaycox, JJ., concur. In the matter of the application of Charles STRAUSS et al., constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, to acquire real estate, etc., in the Towns of Mt. Allene STROHMANN, respondent, v. S. LIERMANN'S SONS BREWING COMPANY, appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 31, 1919.) Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, unless within 20 days plaintiff stipulate to reduce the verdict to $2.500, in which event the judgment, as so modified, and the order, are unanimously affirmed, without costs. Mills, Rich, Blackmar, Kelly, and Jaycox, JJ., concur. Oscar STROSENSKY, appellant, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC RAILROAD COMPANY, respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 21, 1919.) Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff's wife in her action for damages, the verdict for the defendant in the husband's case is against the Pleasant, Harrison, and North Castle, West-evidence and inconsistent. He was at least en titled to recover a reasonable amount for the doctor's services. Gray v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 72 App. Div. 454, 76 N. Y. Supp. 24. Rich, Putnam, Blackmar, Kelly, and Jaycox, JJ., concur. chester County, etc. Kensico Reservoir (Highways). (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 21, 1919.) No part of respondents' land was acquired in this proceeding, nor is any of it contiguous to land acquired by appellant, and no portion thereof abuts upon any discontinued portion of any of the highways which have been closed and discontinued by this proceeding. Respondents' right of recovery cannot be based upon section 42 of chapter 724, Laws of 1905, as vision, Second Department. November 21. amended by section 9, chapter 314, Laws of 1906, because the statute does not apply to this Rebecca STROSENSKY, appellant, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC RAILROAD COMPANY, respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di1919.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. (178 N.Y.S.) Leo STRUKEL v. Ignatz ADLER. (Su- | Morris TALSKY v. Isaac S. WOLF et al. preme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Application denied, with $10 costs, and stay vacated. Order signed. Catharine SULLIVAN, Respt., v. Helen L. ASHLEY as Adm'x, etc., Respt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 31, 1919.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Order filed. Catharine SULLIVAN, Respt., v. Helen L. ASHLEY, as Adm'x, etc., Applt. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. December, 1919.) Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Clarke, P. J., dissenting, and voting for reversal on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Order filed. In the matter of the claim of James H. SULLIVAN for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law v. DETROIT CADILLAC MOTOR CAR COMPANY, employer, and Zu (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 17, 1919.) Motion denied. with $10 costs. Order filed. Leon TANENBAUM et al. v. 663-665 BROADWAY CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 28, 1919.) Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed. In the matter of the claim of Hazel TERRELL and minor dependents for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law for the death of Isaac Terrell. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, respt. v. ACCO TAXI COMPANY, employer, and Travelers' Insurance Company, insurance carrier, applts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 12, 1919.) Award unanimously affirmed. Orville C. TERWILLIGER, respondent. v. MILES-TIGHE CONTRACTING COMPANY, rich General Accident & Liability Insurance appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviCompany, Ltd., insurance carrier, applts. (Su- sion, Second Department. 17, preme Court, Appellate Division, Third De- 1919.) Appeal dismissed, without costs. partment. November 12, 1919.) Award unan imously affirmed. |