
    CALLANAN, Respondent, v. KEESEVILLE, A. C. & L. C. R. CO. et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
    January 14, 1910.)
    Action by Michael J. Callanan, suing individually and in behalf of other stockholders of the defendant company similarly situated, against the Keeseville, Ausable Chasm & Lake Champlain Railroad Company and others.
   PER CURIAM.

PlaintiS’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Upon such1 appeal the following question is certified: “Was the relief properly conditioned on payment or provision for payment of the expenditures made after action brought?” If plaintiff, pursuant to the permission granted, appeals to the Court of Appeals within 30 days, the time within which plaintiff must elect whether he will comply with the conditions specified, as provided in the thirteenth paragraph of the interlocutory judgment, is extended to 30 days after the determination by the Court of Appeals of the appeal so taken. Application of the defendant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Upon such appeal the following questions are certified: “(1) Was the judgment authorized by the evidence, and findings of the referee? (2) Is the judgment secundum allegata? (3) Did the reception in evidence of conversations between Powers and Mansfield, or either of them, and the officers and directors of the railroad company before and at the time of the making of the contract, as detailed at folios 2712, 3130, 3137, 3140, 3898, 3904, 3915, 3916, 4102, 4105, 5556, over the objection and- exception of the defendants Powers and Mansfield, constitute reversible error?” See, also, 132 App. Div. 940, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1097.  