Stiefel v. Berlin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Samuel N. Berlin and Bernard Trosky, composing, the firm of Berlin & Trosky, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plain tiffj entered in the. office of the clerk of the county of New York -on the 24th day of May, 1897, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term. '
1Opinion of the Court
Rumsey, J.:
Benjamin Blumenthal, Otto Rothschild and -Julius Rothschild were copartners in business in the city of New York under the firm name of Blumenthal & Co., organized as a special partnership under the laws, of the State, Blumenthal and Otto Rothschild being, the general partners and Julius Rothschild the special partner. In the month of October, 1895, a judgment was recovered in the City Court of New York by Morris Feigel and Isaac Feigel against the firm of Blumenthal & Co., upon which execution having been returned unsatisfied, proceedings supplementary to execution were begun which…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wright v. . NostrandNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Innes v. LansingNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
- Cole v. Millerton Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Porter v. . Williams and ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Varnum v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Shannon v. StegerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Whyte v. DenikeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900