
    Martin E. Stiner and Walter H. Stiner, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of William H. Stiner & Son, Appellants, v. Tennessee Copper Company, Respondent. (Actions Nos. 2, 3 and 4.)
    First Department,
    December 1, 1916.
    See head note in Stiner v. Tennessee Copper Co., No. 1 (ante, p. 209).
    Appeal in each action by the plaintiffs, Martin E. Stiner and another, from orders of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 25th day of September, 1915, vacating warrants of attachment issued in each of the three cases upon the papers on which the same were granted.
    
      Henry L. Scheuerman [Milton Mayer and Goodman Bloch with him on the brief], for the appellants.
    
      John B. Stanchfield [Edwin C. Vogel, Samuel Kramer and George Trosk with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

Each of these actions is brought to recover damages for breaches of a contract. The contract and the alleged breaches are in all respects similar to those arising in action No. 1, the appeal in which has been argued and is to be decided herewith. Therefore, our opinion in action No. 1 (176 App. Div. 209), in so far as it relates to the causes of action for damages for breaches of contract, applies to and is decisive of the questions arising on these appeals.

It follows that the order in each action should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate the attachment in each action denied, with ten dollars costs, and attachment reinstated.

Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions denied, with ten dollars costs, and attachments reinstated.  