TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN THE FIRST TWENTY VOLUMES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON BY APPELLATE COURTS. Allison v. Schmitz, XVIII, 265, Affirmed, Averill v. Day, XIV, 86, Affirmed, Jan. Baird v. The Mayor, &c., of N. Y., Baker v. The Village of Oneonta, XV, Coe v. Bearup, XIV, 246, Affirmed, Oct. 7, 1884. No opinion. Crim v. Starkweather, XIX, 403, Affirmed, March 10, 1885. No opinion. Crosby v. Stephan, XIX, 172, Appeal dismissed.... ..... XX, 373 Crouch v. Hayes, XIV, 528, Affirmed, XX, 491 .XX, 22 Crouse v. Frothingham, XV, 219, Re- Delahunt v. The Etna Fire Ins. Co., Donahue v. Kendall, XIX, 506, Affirmed, Drake v. Seaman, XIV, 374, Affirmed, Erkenbrach v. Erkenbrach, XVIII, 444, Moore v. The City of Albany, XX, 282, Affirmed, March 3. 1885; motion for re argument denied, March 24, 1885. RR. Co., XIV, 28, Reversed. .... XX, 135 | Murphy v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Higgins v. Crichton, XV, 248, Affirmed, Hutchins v. Hutchins, XV, 370, Reversed, In re accounting of Tilden's ex'rs, XIX, 128, Reversed, March 10, 1885. In re application of Jacobs, XIX, 533, In re estate of Hood, XX, 316, Reversed, In re petition of Mehrbach, XIX, 465, In re petition of the N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co. v. Bennet, XX, 212, Affirmed, In re petition of the N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co. v. Scheu, XX, 194, Affirmed, In re settlement of Mahan, XIX, 239, In re the Union Ferry Co., XIX, 101, In re will of Russell, XIX, 435, Affirmed, James v. Shea, XV, 359, Affirmed, Jan. Johnson v. The N. Y., Ont. & W. RR. Co., XVII, 280, Affirmed, Oct. 21, 1884, Jonsson v. Thompson, XV, 475, Revers- Kimball v. Mapes, XIX, 481, Affirmed, Kipp v. McLean, XV, 168, Affirmed, Jan. Lenhart v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co., XIX, 17, Affirmed, Feb. 10, 1885. McDermott v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co., XVI., 57, Affirmed, Jan. 20, 1885, McKeon v. Fish, XIX, 402, Affirmed, Martin v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. RR. Co., Nichols v. The Weed S. M. Co., XIV, 391, Affirmed, Dec. 19, 1884. Νο Nottingham v. Clark, XIV, 333, Affirm- Newman v. The Third Ave. RR. Co., XIX, 500, Appeal dismissed, Oct. 31, Osterhoudt v. Rigney, XIV, 566, Affirm- Palmer v. Platt, XV, 304, Affirmed, Jan. Parker v. Stroud, XVIII, 454, Reversed, Platz v. The City of Cohoes, XIV, 61, Affirmed, Oct. 28, 1884. No opinion. Porter v. Beale, XIII, 205, Affirmed, Jan. Powers v. The N. Y., L. E. & W. RR. Co., XIX, 408, Reversed, March 3, 1885. Price v. Price, XIX, 331, Affirmed, March Putnam v. Stewart, XIV, 495, Affirmed, XX, 145 The Mechanics & Traders' Nat'l Bk. v. The Mayor, &c., of N. Y., XV, 263, Modified... .XX, 247 Motion to amend remittitur denied, XX, 322 .XX, 362 The Metropolitan Nat'l Bk. v. Sirret, The Order Germania v. Devender, XIX, The People v. Augsbury, XVI, 378, Reversed. .XX, 307 The People v. Conroy, XIX, 488, Affirmed...... XX, 242 The People v. McKeon, XVIII, 571, Affirmed, Oct. 21, 1884. No opinion. The People v. Persons, XIX, 106, Appeal dismissed, March 24, 1885. No opinion. The People v. The Gold & Stock Tel. Co., XIX, 213, Modified.... .XX, 566 ........ The People ex rel. Lawrence v. Mann, The Union Trust Co. v. Whiton, XV, 108, Weston v. Ives, XIV, 413, Reversed, THE NEW YORK WEEKLY DIGEST. VOLUME XX. MASTER AND SERVANT. NEGLIGENCE. N. Y. COURT OF APPEALS. Stroher, respt., v. Elting, applt. Defendant furnished a team and wagon to one M. under an arrangement that M. was to work them and receive one-fourth of the proceeds, and defendant to receive the bal ance. Plaintiff was run over and injured by the team while M. was driving them. Held, That as to third persons, defendant and M. each became the agent of the other in the prosecution of the common enterprise and liable for his omissions and faults in regard thereto, Affirming S. C., 15 W. Dig., 203. This action was brought to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff, by being knocked down and run over by a team of horses and wagon belonging to defendant, while walking in a public street in the village of Port Jervis. It appeared that the de fendant was not present at the Vol. 20-No. 1. collision. There was no dispute as to the facts. The team was owned by the defendant, who carried on the business of carrying passengers. Defendant testified that his arrangement with the driver was that he should furnish the team and equipments and take care of them, and the driver should gather the passengers and collect their fares, which were to be divided, three-quarters to defendant and one-quarter to the driver. The court held as matter of law that defendant was liable for the driver's negligence. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff. Lewis E. Carr, for applt. Held, No error; that as to third persons, defendant and the driver each became the agent of the other in the prosecution of the common enterprise, and liable for his omissions and faults in regard |