Foster v. Kenny
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by William George Foster from part of 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 Kings oh the 20th day of June,. 1910, resettling an order entered on the l6th day of June, 1910, which modified an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of February, 1909. Also an appeal by the commissioners of accounts of the city of Hew York and by Raymond B1 Fosclick, commissioner of…
Read the full summary
Appeal by William George Foster from part of 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 Kings oh the 20th day of June,. 1910, resettling an order entered on the l6th day of June, 1910, which modified an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of February, 1909. Also an appeal by the commissioners of accounts of the city of Hew York and by Raymond B1 Fosclick, commissioner of accounts of said city, from said order, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 16th day o-f…
1Opinion of the Court
Burr, J.:
Prior to January 23, 190.9, William George Foster and William J. K. Kenny were cojjartnérs,. doing' business under the firm name 'of William George Foster. Oh that date; the firm was-dissolved.. ' On February 10, 1909,. in an action brought in the Supreme Court in Kings county for- a settlement of the partnership accounts, Hamilton Holt was appointed receiver of the copartnership property during the pendency of said action, and the parties thereto were, directed to deliver to him “ all partnership booliSj books of account, journals, ledgers,, .check books, ■ papers and other…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Adams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. BrimsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Mitchel v. Honorable CropseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Cataldo v. County of MonroeNew York Supreme Court · 1963
- Sun-Ray Cloak Co. v. Unity Cloak Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Zelter v. NashAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
- In re EllisNew York Supreme Court · 1941
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.