Legal Opinion
Weidenfeld v. Pacific Improvement Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided September 7, 1920PublishedCited by 3 opinions
At Law. Action by Camille Weidenfeld against the Pacific Improvement Company. On motion by defendant to set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
GARVIN, District Judge.
This is a motion by defendant to set aside a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $74,746.87, with interest, after a trial before the court and jury. This sum is the amount of a promissory note (the renewal of a previous note) which reads as follows:
“$74,746.87.
New York, February 25, 1897.
“The Central New York & Western R. R. Co., six months after date, and upon return of securities given, promise to pay C. Weidenfeld, or order, seventy-four thousand seven hundred forty-six and 87/ioo dollars, for value received, with interest at six per cent, per annum, having…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bank of United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Davis v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Benton v. . MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Higgins v. . RidgwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Grannis v. . StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Francisco v. FranciscoMontana Supreme Court · 1947
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. AndereggCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Grace Line, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956