Legal Opinion

Whitridge v. Park

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1917PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Demurrer to complaint.

1Opinion of the CourtGreenbaum, J.

The defendant Calestock demurs to the complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint alleges ownership in plaintiffs of certain residential properties in the borough of Manhattan known as Nos. 14, 24, 25, 27 and 29 East Eleventh street and No. 3 East Ninth street, and that the defendants' Park and Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, as trustees, are the owners of premises known as No. 47 Fifth avenue, in .said borough, and that the ■ defendant Calestock is the lessee and occupant of said premises, who is conducting the business of a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mayor of Hudson v. ThorneNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
  2. Moore v. . GadsdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  3. Hagerty v. McGovernMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  4. Village of New Rochelle v. LangNew York Supreme Court · 1894
  5. City of Mount Vernon v. SeeleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Welton v. 40 East Oak St. Bldg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934
  2. Cohen v. Rosedale Realty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Keenly v. McCartyNew York Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Coley v. CampbellNew York Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Owid v. MoushatyNew York Supreme Court · 1925

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API