*1 638 MEMORANDA. 243 tVol.

Eugene Van Voorhis for appellant. for Levy respondent. Samuel with no Judgment affirmed, costs; opinion. Ch. J., Cardozo, His Mc-

Concur: cock, Pound, and Lehman, JJ. Andrews Laughlin, Crane, People v. York, Respondent, The of the of State New

Joseph D. Sugarman, Appellant. — judg- hypothecation customer’s Crimes —stockbrokers of securities — conviction ment affirmed. of 209, App. affirmed. v. 216 Div. People Sugarman, 16, 15, 1926; 1926.) (Argued October decided November Appeal of judgment from of the Division Appellate a department, in the first Supreme judicial the Court of judgment affirmed a the 19, 1925, entered March which county of in the of Court of Peace General Sessions the convicting York rendered a the defend- upon New verdict of a ant, of stockbroker, a of the hypothecation crime of the in of section 956 customer’s securities violation Penal Law. Max Lazarus for appellant. Samuels and

Philip C. Benvenga (Felix C. Attorney District Banton, Jodb H. Henry counsel), respondent. of for and Charles opinion. no Judgment affirmed; Mc- J., Cardozo, His Ch. Concur: Pound, cock, Dissenting: Leh- JJ. and Andrews, Crane Laughlin, man, J. City Pilkington v. The Inc., Respondent, Co.,

James York, Appellant. of New — and work city extra to recover York action Contract —New for public work. performance required in contract materials of for 756, App. Div. 216 Inc., York, Co., City v. Pilkington New of affirmed. 16, 1926.) 15, 1926; (Argued decided November October of Division the Appeal of judgment Appellate a from judicial department, the first in the Court Supreme 639 MEMORANDA. Rep.] Y. N. 29, 1926, modifying entered March affirming and as a judgment modified in favor of plaintiff upon a entered *2 verdict. The was to for alleged action recover an breach aof into contract entered between the defend- plaintiff and ant for of in system the construction a of sewers, that (cid:127) compelled was to certain plaintiff perform work and furnish operate certain equipment, and and supply to to certain materials do the work required by the contract of outside of terms the the contract itself. Damages alleged were for extra work, claimed labor, services, and material in equipment required making excavations, furnishing operating and pumps and boilers with fuel power, to supplying and teams haul material, cost of for helper blacksmith and repairing tools and equipment boilers, required and all of the necessity because of con- tinuously pumping water from the excavations in order a keep proper to them in and safe condition to perform the work of the required contractor.

George P. Nicholson, Counsel Corporation (Elliott S. Benedict and John F. O’Brien of for counsel), appellant.

Philip respondent. J. Britt for Judgment affirmed, opinion. with costs; no Concur: J., Pound, McLaughlin, Ch. Hiscock, and Lehman, voting: JJ. Not Crane, Andrews Car- DOZO, J. a Corporation, v. West- Westphal,

Paul Respondent, phal’s Corporation Best al., et World’s Appellants. — — injunction action in

Tradenames to restrain use name con- of nection with certain business. Westphal’s Westphal Corp., App. 53, v. Best World’s 216 Div. affirmed. 15, (Argued 16, 1926; 1926.) October decided November

Appeal judgment a Appellate from of the of Division the in Supreme judicial Court the department, first 1926, 22, entered March affirming judgment a in favor of a plaintiff upon decision trial of the on at entered court