Legal Opinion

Rubinstein v. Rubinstein

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1941PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalter, J.

Motion to vacate ex parte order for examination under section 1094-a of the Civil Practice Act is granted. The section authorizes an examination only in an action to recover a chattel, and the complaint here refers only to shares of stock and makes no reference to any certificate representing or evidencing such shares. Even if it had referred to such certificate T think the result would be the same. Certificates of stock are personal property, but they are not chattels. (Ajax Craftsmen, Inc., v. Whinston, 269 N. Y. 7; Gen. Constr. Law, § 15; Niles v. Mathusa, 162 N. Y. 546; Crocker Fire…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Niles v. Martin Mathusa & Hinckel Brewing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Ajax Craftsmen, Inc. v. WhinstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
  3. Croker Fire Prevention Corp. v. JacobsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Saper v. DelgadoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  2. Horowitz v. Securities Clearance Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API