against the City and the Commission, and to preserve the status quo until the work is completed. A stipulation to that effect was signed by all the parties.

(43) Charles T. Cowenhoven, Jr., and others v. The City of New York and others- Supreme Court, Kings County.

The Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, predecessor to the Public Service Commission, established certain. underground rapid transit railways along and through Flatbush avenue and Hudson avenue, and on certain other streets including Hudson avenue in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York. The City of New York, acting by the Commission, entered into a contract with William Bradley, one of the defendants in this action, for the construction of this subway.

The plaintiff, who is the owner of premises at 491 Hudson avenue, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, brought this action claiming that in the course of excavation and construction of this subway the defendants for a long time obstructed and made impassable Hudson avenue immediately in front of and adjacent to his premises, and that the easements of lateral support to his premises were damaged. The Commission demurred to the complaint on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction of the defendant, the Public Service Commission. The City of New York, which is the principal in interest, has answered the complaint and noticed the case for trial.

ACTIONS TO FORECLOSE LIENS

(44) Marshall and others v. Richensteen and others- Supreme Court, Queens County.

This was an action brought to foreclose a mortgage on premises at East 4th street and Jackson avenue, in the Borough of Queens, City of New York. The Commission was a party because the consent had been given by the owner of the premises to the Commission for the construction of the Steinway Tunnel Rapid Transit Railroad in 1911. Notice of object of action was served with the summons and the plaintiff made no personal claim. against any of the defendants except William Richensteen.

(45) Martin Motor Trucking Company v. Degnon Contracting Company and others - Supreme Court, Kings County. This action was instituted in the Supreme Court, Kings County, to foreclose a mechanic's lien against the Degnon Company for certain work in carting away earth and excavated material upon subway construction engaged in by the Degnon Company in Flatbush avenue, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York. The Commission although made a party has no claim to assert in this case.

(46) Perfect Coatfront Pad Company v. Mary C. Therry and others Supreme Court, New York County.

This was an action instituted in the Supreme Court, New York County, to foreclose a mortgage on premises situated at 14th street and Second avenue, in The City of New York. A notice of the object of the action was served with the summons. It stated that no personal claim was made against the Commission, as it merely had the lease of a room in the premises. The Commission appeared in the action and waived service of all papers and notices of all proceedings in this action except notice of sale and proceedings to obtain surplus moneys, which were duly served.

(47) Hamerschlag and others v. George Daily and othersSupreme Court, Bronx County.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage on property on the northerly side of Longwood avenue between Fox street and Southern boulevard, in the Borough of The Bronx. Under date of September 23, 1915, The City of New York, acting by the Commission, entered into an agreement with Oland Realty Company, Inc., owner of the premises, and Interborough Rapid Transit Company for the construction and maintenance of a stairway to the Longwood Avenue station of the Seventh AvenueLexington Avenue Subway line on Longwood avenue in front of the premises. The members of the Public Service Commission were joined as parties defendant because of this agreement. An order was entered in this action on February 17, 1917, discontinuing the action as to the defendants, Public Service Commission

for the First District, and Oscar S. Straus and others, as Commissioners.

(48) The Mayhew Co., Inc., v. New York and North Shore Traction Company and others - Supreme Court, Queens

County.

This was an action brought to foreclose a tax lien on certain property. The Commission did not appear to have or claim any interest in the property but the Long Island Electric Railway Company, one of the defendants, apparently had some interest in the property to be foreclosed. The Commission apparently was joined as a party because it had entered a judgment against the Long Island Electric Railway Company which was paid by that company, but not satisfied of record. The satisfaction of the judgment was later formally entered on the docket.

(49) New York Title and Mortgage Company v. Joseph Goodman and others-Supreme Court, Bronx County.

This action was brought by the New York Title and Mortgage Company against Joseph Goodman and others for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain premises abutting upon the Southern Boulevard and Whitlock Avenue Subway route in The Bronx The only interest which the Commission might have in the premises would arise from a consent given in 1910 by Chelsea Realty Company as a former owner of the premises to the construction and operation of the Southern Boulevard and Whitlock Avenue route. The mortgage antedated the consent. As the Southern Boulevard and Whitlock Avenue Rapid Transit railroad is almost completed, the foreclosure of a mortgage upon any premises as to which a consent was given would not affect the status of the railroad. Apparently no interest in the property was asserted by the Commission by reason of the consent, and no further action was necessary on behalf of the Commission.

ACTIONS RELATING TO DETERMINATIONS BY CHIEF ENGINEER (50) City v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company and others· Supreme Court, New York County.

On March 19, 1913, a contract was made between The City of New York, acting through the Public Service Commission for

the First District, and the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, the defendant in this action. The contract provided that the City would construct and lease a proposed rapid transit railroad described in the contract to the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, upon condition, among other things, that the lessee would contribute not less than $58,000,000 unless the cost of construction be less than $116,000,000, in which event the lessee's contribution was to be diminished by one-half the difference between $116,000,000 and the total cost of construction of the railroad, and that the lessee would furnish all the equipment therefor. The contract also provided that the cost of certain construction and the cost of certain equipment should be determined by the Chief Engineer of the Commission. On October 14, 1913, Alfred Craven, Chief Engineer of the Commission, rendered a determination of the cost of construction and of the cost of equipment paid or accrued prior to the date of the above contract. This action was brought by The City of New York against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company and Oscar S. Straus and others, as members of and constituting the Public Service Commission for the First District, and Alfred Craven, as Chief Engineer of the Commission, to have this determination of the Chief Engineer, in so far as certain sums were allowed to the lessee as part of its cost of construction and equipment, adjudged null and void as against the City and canceled and stricken from the records of the Commission and to have a proper determination rendered by the Chief Engineer, and to have the defendants, Oscar S. Straus and others, as members of and constituting the Public Service Commission for the First District, permanently enjoined and restrained from treating or recognizing as valid and legal and binding upon the City the determination of the Chief Engineer dated October 14, 1913. The action was subsequently discontinued as to Oscar S. Straus and others, as members of and constituting the Public Service Commission for the First District, and Daniel L. Turner, successor to Alfred Craven, as Chief Engineer, was substituted in the place and stead of Alfred Craven as defendant. The issues of this action have been joined but the case has not yet been noticed for trial.

(51) City v. New York Municipal Railway Corporation and others — Supreme Court, New York County.

On March 19, 1913, a contract was made between The City of New York, acting through the Public Service Commission for the First District, and the New York Municipal Railway Corporation, the defendant in this action. The contract provided that the City would construct and lease a proposed rapid transit railroad described in the contract to the New York Municipal Railway Corporation, upon condition, among other things, that the lessee would contribute $13,500,000 toward the cost of construction of the railroad and that the lessee would furnish all the equipment therefor. The contract also provided that the cost of certain construction and the cost of certain equipment should be determined by the Chief Engineer of the Commission. On November 24, 1913, Alfred Craven, Chief Engineer of the Commission, rendered a determination of the cost of construction and of the cost of equipment paid or accrued prior to the date of the above contract. This action was brought by the City against the New York Municipal Railway Corporation and Oscar S. Straus and others, as members of and constituting the Public Service Commission for the First District, and Daniel L. Turner, the successor to Alfred Craven, as Chief Engineer of the Commission, to have the determination of the Chief Engineer, in so far as certain sums were allowed to the lessee as part of its cost of construction and equipment, adjudged null and void as against the City and canceled and stricken from the records of the Commission, to have a proper determination rendered by the Chief Engineer, and to have the defendants, Oscar S. Straus and others, as members of and constituting the Public Service Commission for the First District, permanently enjoined and restrained from treating or recognizing as valid and legal and binding upon the City the determination of the Chief Engineer dated November 24, 1913. The answer of the Commission in this case has been served but the matter has not yet been brought to trial.