Legal Opinion
Crozier v. United States Steel Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 9, 1932PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFrankenthaler, J.
The previous order of this court, denying Hoyne’s motion to dismiss the complaint, was based upon the theory that the action relates to a res within this jurisdiction. The papers submitted in opposition to the present motion to compel the continuance of the action do not state any facts which would justify a different conclusion. The deposit by the. United States Steel Corporation in its general bank account of the funds which it held in trust did not necessarily prevent the tracing and identification of the trust res. (Importers & Traders’ N. Bank v. Peters, 123 N. Y. 272; Abraham v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Importers & Traders' National Bank v. PetersNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Hanna v. . StedmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Holmes v. . CampNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- In re RogersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
- Livermore v. . BainbridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Crozier v. Freeman Coal Mining Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1936
- Bennett v. Harrisville Combing Mills, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1952
- Glasser v. RogersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945