The Jewelers' Mercantile Agency, Limited, Respondent, v. Albert Ulmann et al., Appellants; The Same, Respondent, v. The Jewelers' Weekly Publishing Company and Albert Ulmann et al., Appellants

The Jewelers’ Mercantile Agency, Limited, Respondent, v. Albert Ulmann et al., Appellants. The Same, Respondent, v. The Jewelers’ Weekly Publishing Company and Albert Ulmann et al., Appellants. Reported below, 6 App. Div. 499; 84 Hun, 12. (Argued November 30, 1896; decided December 8, 1896.) Motion to consolidate appeals —■ the first, an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 11, 1896, which modified and, as modified, affirmed an order of Special Term adjudging defendants to he in contempt, which appeal had been noticed for argument; the second, an appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 26, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special' Term, and which appeal is not on the present calendar. Leopold Sondheim for motion. Howard, Mansfield opposed. [MAJORITY] Motion to advance denied, and motion to stay argument of the appeal from order granted until argument of the appeal from judgment. Both appeals to be heard together as one.