
    PFEIFFER v. JOLINE et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 15, 1909.)
    Costs (§ 276)—Remedies foe Collection—Exclusion fbom Paeticipation of Tbial.
    The exclusion of defendants from participating in the trial because of the nonpayment of costs, imposed as terms for a continuance, is erroneous.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. § 1048; Dec. Dig. § 276. *3
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    
      Action by Joseph Pfeiffer against Adrian H. Joline and Douglas Robinson, as receivers of the New York City Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
    Argued before GIRDERSBEEVE, P. J., and BISCHOEE and GUY, JJ.
    Anthony J. Ernest, for appellants.
    Alexander & Green, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § numbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The exclusion of the defendants from participation in the trial because of the nonpayment of costs, imposed as terms for continuance, was without warrant in law. Barber v. Flauman, 30 Mise. Rep. 627, 62 N. Y. Supp. 784.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.  