
    The Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, Respondent, v. Louise C. Butler et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
    (Argued May 31, 1915;
    decided June 15, 1915.)
    
      Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn v. Butler, 167 App. Div. 257, affirmed.
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 9, 1915, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action under sections 1638 to 1650 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel determination of a claim to real property. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of a certain piece of real property and that the defendants unjustly make claim to an easement on interest therein in the nature of a restriction upon the kind of building that may be erected thereon.
    The following question was certified: “Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”
    
      Frederick B. Campbell for Louise 0. Butler, appellant.
    
      Samuel Hoff for Sophie Liebmann, appellant.
    
      John Frankenheimer, William B. Anderson and Gordon Knox Bell for other appellants.
    
      William N. Dykman and Edgar M. Cullen for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Willard - Bartlett, Oh. J., Chase, Cuddebaok, Hogan, Miller and Seabury, JJ. Not voting: Hisoook, J.  