Beecher v. Peter A. Vogt Manufacturing Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered June 10, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special' Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered June 10, 1918, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special' Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The rights of the plaintiffs to offset the- judgment are superior to the rights, of the defendants Stanley & Gidley by way of attorneys’ lien. (Manning v. N. Y. C. P., 13 Wend. 647; Perry v. Chester, 53 N. Y. 240; Matter of Heinsheimer, 214 N. Y. 361.) The…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
On October 27, 1916, the Peter A. Vogt Manufacturing Company recovered a judgment for a sum of money against Beecher and Smith, as executors of James C. Beecher, and against Smith individually. On October 28, 1916, the German-American Bank of Buffalo recovered a judgment for a sum of money against the Peter A. Vogt Manufacturing Company. The latter judgment was.-assigned to the executors of Beecher, who in turn assigned to Smith an undivided interest. This action is brought by the executors and Smith to set off the judgment which they own against the judgment which they owe. The defendants…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Scott v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Sawyer v. HoagSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Fischer-Hansen v. . Bklyn. Heights R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- North Chicago Rolling Mill Co. v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Matter of HeinsheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- Kemper Reinsurance Co. v. CorcoranNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Scherling v. Hellman Electric Corp. (In Re Westchester Structures, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Woodbury v. Andrew Jergens Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.