Hart v. Goadby
New York Supreme Court
Demubrebs to the first, second and twelfth separate and distinct and partial defenses in the answer on the ground that' each is insufficient in law upon the face thereof.
1Opinion of the CourtLehman, J.
The plaintiffs are remaindermen and assignees of the executors of the life beneficiary under a trust created under the will of Joseph B. Hart, who died on the 14th day of December, 1878. The defendants are copartners engaged in business as bankers and brokers under the firm name of W. H. Goadby & Co. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that “ between the 28th day of December, 1878, and the 20th day of September, 1907, John Jay Hestell, the trustee appointed and acting under said will, did wrongfully, unlawfully, and in violation of his duty as trustee under the last will and testament of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lightfoot v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Carr v. . ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Putnam v. . Lincoln Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Steele v. LeopoldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
- Yeoman v. TownshendNew York Supreme Court · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cohen v. City Company of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Hifler v. Calmac Oil & Gas Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- McKenzie v. Wappler Electric Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Marine Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935
- In re the Accounting of FaethNew York Surrogate's Court · 1951
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.