
    HOES, Appellant, v. HUME, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, First Department.
    May 1, 1896.)
    Action by William M. Hoes, as public administrator, etc., against Thomas Hume. J. W. Boothby, for appellant: R. E. Deyo, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The rule laid down upon the previous appeal (Stebbins v. Hume, 1 N. Y. Supp. 131) is the law of this case, so far as this court is concerned. The trial judge ruled precisely in accordance with the views there laid down by the general term. We should therefore affirm his action. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.  