
    STOKES v. INVESTORS’ & TRADERS’ REALTY CO. et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 29, 1910.)
    Trial (§ 13)—Calendars—Preference—Rules of Court.
    Plaintiff being clearly entitled to a preference under the rules of the court, it was error to refuse his motion therefor.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Dec. Dig. § 13.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Jane A. Stokes against the Investors’ & Traders’ Realty Company and others. From an order denying his motion for a preference, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed and granted.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. . J., and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
    George W. Carr, for appellant.
    Charles L. Hoffman, for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

As the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a preference under the rules of this court, it was. error for the judge below to' refuse to grant it.

The order is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.  