Legal Opinion

State Bank v. Wilchinsky

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1909PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Motion to punish the respondent for contempt.

1Opinion of the CourtGiegerich, J.

The respondent, Harris Shapiro, having purchased the premises which are the subject of this action at the foreclosure sale thereof, and having failed to complete his purchase by payment of the balance of the purchase price, an order was obtained by the plaintiff which directed the respondent to pay to the referee the amount of the resulting damages, which had been ascertained upon a reference had for that purpose. That order was served upon the respondent personally. In the proceeding in which that order was obtained and which was a special proceeding (Merges v. Ringler, 158 N. Y. 701), the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pitt v. . DavisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
  2. Matter of DepueNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
  3. Grant v. GreeneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  4. Goldie v. GoldieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
  5. Merges v. . RinglerNew York Court of Appeals · 1899

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rosenthal v. RosenthalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  2. Carr v. CarrNew York Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Weishar v. WeisharAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1929
  4. Twelfth Ward Bank v. LuckesNew York Supreme Court · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API