Legal Opinion

Propper v. Taylor

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1945PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalter, J.

Prior to December 7, 1941, plaintiff, a citizen of the United States residing in New York, was appointed receiver of the assets in this State of an Austrian corporation referred to in the record as A. K. M. and brought this 'action to recover a sum of money allegedly due on contract from defendant to that Austrian corporation. Upon a motion for a stay made after December 7, 1941, I considered whether or not the action *71came within the rule that an alien enemy resident in the enemy’s country cannot during the war prosecute an action in our courts, and concluded that it did not for the reason…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Central Union Trust Co. of NY v. GarvanSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Commercial Trust Co. of NJ v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Cummings v. Deutsche Bank Und DiscontogesellschaftSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Propper v. BuckNew York Supreme Court · 1942

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Propper v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Propper v. TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Propper v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API