(116 A.) MEMORANDUM DECISIONS MICHAEL v. GREENBERG et al. (Su- gence against the company on which the plainpreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. Feb. tiff relied was failure to keep the walk in a 21, 1922.) Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frank D. Haines, Judge. Action by Edward Michael against Jacob Greenberg and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. No error. Nathan O. Freedman, of Hartford, for appellants. Henry J. Calnen, of Hartford, for appellee. KIMBALL v. DAVIS, Director General of Railroads. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. March 20, 1922.) On Motion from Superior Court, Cumberland County, at Law. Action by Bertha G. Kimball against James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads. Verdict for plaintiff. On motion for new trial. Motion overruled. Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ. Benjamin L. Berman, of Lewiston, and John T. Fagan and Jacob H. Berman, both of Portland, for plaintiff. Charles B. Carter (of White, Carter & Skelton), of Lewiston, for defendant. PER CURIAM. While approaching the Union Station in the city of Portland for the purpose of purchasing railway tickets to be used by another person on a later train, the plaintiff slipped on an icy walk which was the regular approach to the station. This walk was on land of the railway company and was constructed and maintained by the company. There had been a heavy fall of snow and the ice was partially concealed thereby. The charge of negli reasonably safe condition for those who were impliedly invited to use the same when approaching the station on business legitimately connected with that of railroad transportation. The defendant offered no testimony but contends that the plaintiff did not maintain the burden of proof necessary to show defendant's negligence, and further contends that the testimony offered by the plaintiff proved her guilty of contributory negligence. Upon both questions of fact, namely, the negligence of the defendant and the lack of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the jury found for the plaintiff. After a careful examination of the record, we do not find justification in setting aside the jury verdict. Neither do we feel that the damages were excessive. The injury was severe and the probability of permanence considerable. Motion overruled. BUCCI et al. v. POPOVICH et al. (No. 94.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by Frank Bucci and others against Stefen Popovich and others. Motion to strike out bill denied (115 Atl. 95), and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Gilbert M. Cornish, of Newark, for appellants. Burnett, Sorg, Murray & Duncan, of Newark, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Fielder. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. DENT v. BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON CORPORATION. (No. 56.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George Dent against the Butterworth-Judson Corporation, employer, to recover for personal inju ries. Compensation was awarded, and on certiorari to the Supreme Court the award was modified and the following per curiam was filed: "The writ of certiorari in this case brings up for review the determination and rule for judgment, entered in the Essex county court of common pleas, in a workmen's compensation case. The defendant, George Dent, on March 11, 1918, while working for the prosecutor, was injured by the bursting of a siphon containing picric acid, resulting in a facial disfigurement of black scars, keloids or claws, and the complete destruction of the sight of the left eye, which before the accident was almost gone, but useful in making out outlines close at hand. The case was originally tried before the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. From that determination the prosecutor appealed to the court of common pleas of Essex county. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau awarded compensation for an injury partial in character and permanent in quality equivalent to 15 per cent. of total disability, or 60 weeks, at $10 per week, equal to $600, $65 attorney's fees, and costs of the proceedings. The Essex county court of common pleas awarded compensation for an injury partial in character and permanent in quality equivalent to 20 per cent. of total disability, or 80 weeks at $10 per week, equal to $800, a counsel fee of $215, and costs of $24.89. The prosecutor contends that the award should be for 10 weeks' compensation for the 10 per cent. loss of the use of the eye affected by the accident, and nothing should be allowed for the disfigurement caused by the spattering of the acid on the head and face of the defendant. The seven reasons set down by the prosecutor for the reversal of the judgment entered in the court of common pleas seem to cover only this point; i. e., error in the court's finding that there was a decreased salability of the defendant's labor. However, all the reasons are argued in the prosecutor's brief under one head, viz.: There was no legal proof that there has been any decrease in the salability of defendant's labor. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the facts as shown in the record. It is sufficient for us to say that the findings of the common pleas court of Essex county are amply supported by the facts; that we are satisfied with the judgment entered in that court as a correct application of the statute to the facts. Finding no error in the record, the judgment entered in the Essex county court of common pleas is affirmed, with costs." The employer appeals. Affirmed. Kalisch & Kalisch, of Newark, for appellant. John V. Laddey, of Newark, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court. For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the FISHER v. TIDE WATER BUILDING CO. (No. 92.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Proceeding by Annie Fisher against the Tide Water Building Company to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. From a judgment (114 Atl. 150), reversing a judgment setting aside an award of compensation and affirming the award, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Howard L. Miller, of Camden, for appellant. D. Trueman Stackhouse, of Camden, for respondent. herein should be affirmed, for the reasons exPER CURIAM. The judgment under review pressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Black in the Supreme Court. 114 Atl. 150. For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: Judge GARDNER. Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 2, FRANK V. FRANK. (No. 38.) (Court of 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit to declare a partnership and an accounting by Moe Frank against Louis Frank. From decree of dismissal of the Court of Chancery (115 Atl. 448), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Aaron A. Melniker, of Jersey City, for appellant. Dembe & Dembe, of Bayonne, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Griffin. 115 Atl. 448. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK. and KATZENBACH, and Judges WHITE, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. GEISEL v. REGINA CO. (No. 52.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation death of Jacob Geisel, opposed by the Regina Act by Eliza Geisel for compensation for the affirmed by the Supreme Court (114 Atl. 328), Company, employer. Award for claimant was Perkins, of Jersey City, for appellant. Kalisch and employer appeals. Affirmed. Randolph & Kalisch, of Newark, for respondent. FELDMAN v. HALPIN. (No. 87.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Action by Joseph Feldman against William H. Halpin. From a judgment of the Supreme Court (114 Atl. 148), reversing a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Isador Haber, of Town of Union, for appellant. Charles William Kappes, of Town of Union, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Minturn in the Supreme Court. 114 Atl. 148. For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices BERGEN, CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, PAR-. BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court. 114 Atl. 328. KER, BERGEN, BLACK, and KATZEN- (116 A.) GENERAL OMNIBUS CO. v. BOARD OF PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEW- will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the ARK. (No. 54.) (Court of Errors and Ap- opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chanpeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal cellor Foster. 115 Atl. 216. from Supreme Court. Certiorari by the General Omnibus Company against the Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark to review an ordinance. From a judgment (114 Atl. 152), dismissing the writ, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Riker & Riker, of Newark, for appellant. Jerome T. Congleton, of Newark, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. 114 Atl. 152. For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the HOLLINSHEAD v. BOROUGH OF OAKLYN (two cases). (Nos. 72, 73.) (Nos. 72, 73.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeals from Supreme Court. Actions by Edward B. Hollinshead against the Borough of Oaklyn. From judgments affirming certain assessments, prosecutor appeals. Affirmed. In the Supreme Court the following per curiam was filed: "The controversy in this case is over an assessment of $10,200 on buildings and improvements. There are seven reasons in one case presented by the prosecutor for setting aside the assessment. The first two relate to the construction of a budget and tax ordinance. The third, fourth, and fifth relate to the change of the assessment list and duplicate; sixth, because no public advertisement was given by the assessor of his complete assessment list and duplicate. In the second case four additional reasons are added. Our reading of the record in these cases does not satisfy us that the prosecutor has established his points as facts, or that the assessment is in excess of the true value of the property. Herbert A. Drake, of Camden, for appellant. Sydney T. Smith, of Camden, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgments under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court. For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARD For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. (No. LUCZAK et ux. v. MARIOVE et ux. 8.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 2, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill by Francis Luczak and another against John Mariove and another. Decree for plaintiffs (112 Atl. 494), and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Otto A. Stiefel, of Newark, for appellant. John Q. Frey, of Newark, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Foster. 112 Atl. 494. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WHITE, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. LUSCIK v. WIESZNIEWSKI et al. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March 6, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by Katazenia Luscik against Nikolai Wieszniewski and another. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Affirmed. George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, for appellants. Eugene R. Hayne, of Jersey City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. This was a bill for an accounting. The material averments contained therein were that the complainant came to this country when she was about 15 years of age, and went to live with the defendants, who were her uncle and aunt; that immediately after taking up her residence with them they entered into an agreement with her, by the terms of which she was to pay all moneys earned by her to them, upon the following trust: That they should support and clothe her out of the earnings, and accumulate the residue for her benefit when she should come of age, and upon her reaching her majority pay over such accumulations, with interest. case came on to be heard before the vice chancellor on the pleadings and proofs, and he reached the conclusion that the case set out in KETCHAM et al. v. DE RAISMES et al. the bill of complaint had been established by (No. 74.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of the proofs, and ordered a reference to a speNew Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from cial master of the court to take the account. Court of Chancery. Bill by George Ketcham At the conclusion of the hearing upon the acand others against Hyppolite A. De Raismes counting, the special master reported that on and another. From a decree for complainants the proofs submitted to him there was due to (115 Atl. 216), defendants appeal. Affirmed. the complainant from the defendants the sum William P. Hurley, of Newark, for appellants. of $2,427.51. The report was duly confirmed John Francis Cahill and Church, Harrison & and a decree entered in accordance therewith. Roche, all of Newark, for respondents. The ground upon which we are asked to reverse NER, and VAN BUSKIRK. The this decree is that the conclusion of the special a judgment of ouster (114 Atl. 808), Browne master was not justified by the proofs taken appeals. Affirmed. Edward F. Merrey, of Patbefore him. Our examination of those proofs erson, for appellant. William I. Lewis, of Patdiscloses that the testimony of the witnesses erson, for respondent. called on the one side and on the other was in direct conflict. We have examined the proofs, and cannot say that the special master erred in his finding, particularly in view of the fact that the witnesses were before him, and the question as to what credit should be given to each of them was primarily one for his determination. The decree appealed from will be affirmed. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WHITE, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. PORTER v. WILLIAMS et al. (No. 68.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill by Benjamin H. Porter against Violet A. Williams and others. Decree for defendants (114 Atl. 790), and complainant appeals. Affirmed. W. Howard Demarest, of Newark, for appellant. Abner Kalisch and Harry Kalisch, both of Newark, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chan cellor Foster. 114 Atl. 790. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. SIEBOLD et al. v. ZIEBOLDT et al. (No. 100.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by Henry Siebold and others against Ernest Zieboldt and another. Decree for complainants (115 Atl. 577), and defendants. appeal. Affirmed. William B. Stites, of Hoboken, for appellant. John J. Fallon, of Hoboken, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Griffin. 115 Atl. 577. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court. 114 Atl. 808. For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Jus- STONE et al. v. GIBB. (No. 19.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 2, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by Laura E. Stone and others against Amy Gibb. To review an order of discovery, defendant appeals. Reversed. Coult & Smith, of Newark, for appellant. Mackay & Mackay, of Hackensack, for respondent. PER CURIAM. This appeal brings up for review an order for discovery allowed upon an ex parte application. The bill of complaint is not verified, and the order itself is fatally defective in substance. The order appealed from will be reversed. For affirmance: None. For reversal: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WHITE, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. Feb. STREET v. HARRIS. (No. 41.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. 2, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill by Elizabeth Street against Joseph Harris, in which defendant counterclaimed. From a judgment dismissing bill and counterclaim (115 Atl. 209), the defendant appeals. Affirmed. George G. Tennant, of Jersey City, for appellant. Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chan cellor Griffin. 115 Atl. 209. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, JusBERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, tices SWAYZE, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WHITE, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. SWEDESBORO NAT. BANK v. RICHMAN et al. (No. 101.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 9, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Interpleader suit by the Swedesboro National Bank against John STATE ex rel. CLAY v. BROWNE. (Court C. Richman, administrator of Hannah S. Richof Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. man and Ada R. Crispin. Decree for first9, 1922.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Quo named defendant (112 Atl. 595), and secondwarranto by the State, on the relation of Thom- named defendant appeals. Affirmed. James (116 A.) Joseph J. Summerill, of Woodbury, for defend- [tered on contract, defendant appeals. Appeal ants. dismissed. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Backes, V. C., in the court below. 112 Atl. 595. For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, and Judges WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACKERSON, and Van BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. Argued before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., and FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART, and SCHAFFER, JJ. Joseph M. Smith, of Philadelphia, for appellant. Ralph S. Croskey, and George J. Edwards, Jr., both of Philadelphia, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Judgment by confession was entered on a bailment contract, for the balance due on a secondhand motor truck, acquired by defendant from plaintiff. This appeal is from a refusal to open the judgment. Since we are not convinced of an abuse of discretion, the appeal is dismissed. YERGER-HAGAN v, DREXEL-BIDDLE. Feb. 6, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Common (No. 235.) (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Pleas, Philadelphia County; Charles Y. Auden ZICK v. SMITH. (No. 21.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Feb. 2, 1922.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Action by John Zick against John F. Smith. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court (112 Atl. 846), and defendant appeals. ried, Judge. Suit by A. Florence Yerger-Hagan Affirmed. John F. Smith, for appellant. At-ried, wood C. Wolf, of Jersey City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Katzenbach in the Supreme Court. 112 Atl. 846. decree discharging a rule for judgment for For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Justices SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, and BLACK, and Judg- PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, a member of the es WHITE, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, ACK-bar of Philadelphia, sued to recover for proERSON, and VAN BUSKIRK. For reversal: None. SIMKIN v. McGOVERN. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Feb. 6, 1922.) Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; J. Willis Martin, Judge. Action by Jacob Simkin against Owen P. McGovern. From a refusal to open a judgment by a confession en fessional services claimed to have been rendered defendant. A rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense having been discharged by the court below, plaintiff appealed. An examination of both statement of claim and affidavit of defense shows that the latter denies the averments contained in the former in its material parts with such reasonable certainty as to take the case to the jury. The court below was not in error in its conclusion, and the judgment is affirmed. END OF CASES IN VOL. 116 |