Legal Opinion

Deitz v. Field

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 15, 1896PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal by the petitioners, S. H. H. Olark and others, as receivers of the Union Pacific Hallway Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 2d day of July, 1896, denying their motion for leave to sue Norman S. Dike, as receiver of the firm property of Field, Lindley, Wiechers & Go. Tho facts are stated in the opinion of G-aynor, J., delivered at the Special Term.

1Opinion of the Court

Blown, P. J.:

The opinion delivered at the Special Term* upon the denial of this motion stated the facts of the case so accurately that they need not be here repeated. It is sufficient to say that, excepting the *427seven, bonds of the Oregon Bailway and Navigation Company, the 140 coupons cut from bonds of the Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Bailway Company, and the item of $2,129.63, the balance admitted by the firm of Wormser & Co. to be due to the firm of Field, Bindley, Wiechers & Co., the judgment recovered by Mr. Dike, the receiver, had no reference to, or connection with, any property…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Conrow v. . LittleNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Rodermund v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1871

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Satterwhite v. Harriman Nat. Bank & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
  2. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. SchiffU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1897
  3. Henderson v. BartlettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
  4. Ideal Concrete Machinery Co. v. National Park BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
  5. Thomas v. SugermanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907

1 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