Edmund Glueck and Mortimer De Groot, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of Glueck & De Groot, Respondents, v. Samuel P. Tull, Appellant, Impleaded with 51-53 Maiden Lane, Inc.

Edmund Glueck and Mortimer De Groot, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of Glueck & De Groot, Respondents, v. Samuel P. Tull, Appellant, Impleaded with 51-53 Maiden Lane, Inc. First Department, May 28, 1920. See head note in Glueck v. Tull (ante, p. 81). Appeal by the defendant; Samuel P. Tull, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 20th day of April, 1920, vacating a judgment and opening the default of defendant, as requires the defendant to stipulate .that he will consent to a reference and requiring defendant pay to plaintiffs the costs of the action to the date of the order. Harry E. Herman of counsel [A. O. Ernst with him on the brief; Herman & Ernst, attorneys], for the appellant. Leo G. Rose, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam:] Per Curiam: For the reasons stated in Glueck v. Tull (192 App. Div. 81), decided herewith, the order will be modified by striking therefrom subdivision 3, which requires a stipulation to try the issues before a referee, and inserting in lieu thereof that the case be restored to the trial calendar, and may be placed on the day calendar for trial on two days’ notice, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Greenbaum, JJ., concur. Order modified as indicated in opinion, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant.