Legal Opinion

Martindale v. DeKay

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1917PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Action to recover upon a check.

1Opinion of the CourtGreenbaum, J.

The plaintiffs, as receivers of Mills & Gibb, a New Jersey corporation, vested with power to prosecute actions in behalf of the corporation for the protection and preservation of its assets, bring this action to recover the proceeds of a certain check for $1,000, dated December 21, 1911, made by the corporation through its treasurer, William T. Evans, to the order of the defendant and drawn on the Chemical National Bank of the City of New York. It is alleged that the defendant received this check and the proceeds thereof on account of and in discharge of a personal obligation of William T.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cohnfeld v. . TanenbaumNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. E. Moch Co. v. Security BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  3. Ferdinand Ehrlich, Inc. v. LevineAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1913

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pearl-Wick Corp. v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (In Re Pearl-Wick Corp.)District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  2. Martindale v. De KayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  3. J. B. Kepner Co. v. HuttonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  4. Gaylord v. AndersonNew York Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Pink v. MeyerNew York Supreme Court · 1936

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